editors

The fact is that good metadata requires human verification and editing, and editors are the last thing any Internet company wants to spend money on.

The analogy is closer to: Git ~ Text Editor GitHub ~ Microsoft Word Sure, git is a commodity service, just like text editors are a commodity product.

For what it's worth, the author (sankho) mentions that he uses other editors for project-wide find and replace.

Something like 'the probability of someone mentioning emacs as great operating system in any discussion about text editors = 1'.

That would rely on browser rendering which is probably quite tricky to get it to look exactly like in editors.

We create the tools that the journalists and editors use to write their stories securely, anywhere from London to Syria.

Programming languages and text editors are good examples of this - most surprises should be caught in the design phase.

This makes a lot of sense, because Wikipedia editors have a lot of problems with flexibility.

This theoretical software is for gathering all of the translations, and having editors and translators (multiple) manage them with ease.

We need some sort of variation of Godwin's Law when it comes to text editors.

The main issue with new users getting into modal editors is the learning curve.

The Chaos Computer Club (CCC) congratulates the editors for receiving this rare journalistic honor and promises support in both action and funds.

Five editors with Solar City only editing interests have edited that article, including one called "AvalonPRlosangeles".

I would pick these books up, and wonder "Who reads these?" At first, I blamed the Editors.(I just figured the person/persons didn't understand the material, and only corrected serious grammatical errors?) As years went by, books/tutorials became better, but even the better ones Left Out Steps?