[FFmpeg-cvslog] [ffmpeg.org]: r300 - trunk/src/contact

[Robert Swain]

2009/2/26 Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at>:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:44:53AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:01:28PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 08:13:26PM +0000, Robert Swain wrote:
>> > > 2009/2/25 Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at>:
>> > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 08:56:57PM +0100, superdump wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Log:
>> > > >
>> > > >> The thread hijacking article on wikipedia was removed because it didn't contain
>> > > >> any citations.
>> > > >
>> > > > ROTFL
>> > > > next they remove the article on evolution because it doesnt contain a
>> > > > citation of the bible
>> > >
>> > > That was my thinking too, though worded differently. Why can't
>> > > wikipedia be _the_ point of reference? Why does everything have to be
>> > > cited?
>> >
>> > Thats because wiki isnt [...]
>>
>> Your habit of referring to Wikipedia as "wiki" makes as much sense
>> as referring to ffmpeg as "mpeg" or "software".
>
> the habit of people refering to sodium chlorid as salt or to kilo gramm
> as kilo also makes no "sense". Still as long as something is commonly
> used and understood in the context used there is no problem.

I wouldn't consider wiki a commonly used and understood abbreviation
for wikipedia. In fact, you're the only person I've ever seen to use
it. Everyone else calls it wikipedia. People do however talk about
wikis all over the web that have nothing to do with wikipedia other
than also being wikis. Thankfully because I had already mentioned
wikipedia, I knew you were referring to it.

Regards,
Rob