Hi, here is a dump of various random thoughts about the project, so I can look back on them later and be embarrassed. Feel free to dive in and discuss anything if you fancy (I might refactor it to the discussion page, of course).

• Note to self: you do not care about the names of articles. Redirects handle most eventualities, and the only occasion to care about an article move is if it breaks incoming links. Exception: allowed to make fuss over UK -> US variant name changes. — Matt Crypto 17:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Using wikilinks to autoformat dates isn't ideal; we should explore ways to reform it: see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#A new parallel syntax for autoformatting_dates.
• Could we have original research in Wikipedia in cases where there exist few or no reliable sources? For example, GNAA seems to have been an OK article, just none of it was verifiable. Problems with OR: 1) the reader has no way of assessing the reliability of the information presented; but more serious pragmatically, 2) editors have no way of resolving disagreements by referring to reliable sources...they'd have to convince each other by argument. I think it would be largely unworkable in an egalitarian collaborative environment. You'd need some binding decision mechanism, e.g., voting or moderators with the final say over content. — Matt Crypto 16:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Ads? No. Opt-in ads? Maybe. — Matt Crypto 11:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• We should have a mechanism whereby people can choose to censor their view of Wikipedia, particularly images. For example, if I were editing in a public library in the United Kingdom, there are plenty of Wikipedia articles on my watchlist that I would not be able check because the images would not fall within the acceptable usage policy of the library. (I don't believe I would be able to disable images globally in the locked-down library browsers, which would be generally inconvenient in any case). — Matt Crypto 11:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• We'd be better off without spoiler warnings. It's just clutter, and it's fairly obvious that an encyclopedia article on a story of any kind is going to give away details of that story. — Matt Crypto 23:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)