See CommunityWikiLogo for more.
[new]
I was half-way through writing something, did a preview, and then- suddenly-
whooooooooooosh!
Green!

Sorry; Couldn't pass it up. That's Jeff Jitlov.
[new]
The CSS is prefixing NearLinks with strange symbols. What's up with that? a.near:before, a.outside:before { content:"?"; }
[new]
That's an arrow pointing to the upper right (u2197), which I am using to indicate links that point away from community wiki. I hesitated between the new prefix and translating the old blue/green link distinction to the new color theme. Telepolis [1] is using a similar icon.[new]
Well, it definitively doesn't work on my browser (OmniWeb?), showing up instead as three characters. Perhaps an HTML entity will work better? (↗)[new]
Unfortunately entity references don't work -- at least not on my browser... I guess that means we'll use either an image (blech), some ASCII character(s), or a color scheme. What do you prefer?[new]
Perhaps changing the character encoding of the CSS file will help?[new]
I've added the following rewrite rule:RewriteRule .*\.css - [last,type=text/css;charset=UTF-8]
Does it help?
[new]
Harping on a bit here, but of the four browsers on my Mac, two (IE 5 and Opera) don't prepend anything (probably due to old CSS code), and the other two (OmniWeb? and Safari) prepend those three characters. If Safari didn't choke, I wouldn't mind so much, but that's a lot of Mac users who're going to see garbage before every external link.I guess the rewrite rule didn't work, because my browser is fine with explicit ? symbols (not entity references) on this page and in the edit form. You should be able to specify a charset directly in your .css file, no?
[new]
Just as a point of reference, on linux using the KDE browser (Konqueror 3.1.1) the CSS is broken but I can see Chris' little arrow symbol on this page just fine, which also shows up okay in Opera and Netscape. The CSS for the symbol is working okay in Netscape and Opera, but not Konqueror. That's too bad because it's my main browser... I'll see if there's a newer version available. Maybe there's a localization setting that would fix this, but obviously the CSS is still broken for a number of OS/browser combinations. While the markup is more complicated for using an image, once loaded it would be cached and would be more reliable than using CSS and expecting font support for Unicode characters in the range of 2197. I'm happy to create a little icon for this if you want.[new]
oh, *gack*. just looked at it in IE6 (6.0.28), and it's not a pretty sight (stupid MS browser). no margins, the link arrow doesn't show up, the logo has a white background, the pictures don't have the white frame. opera 7.23 shows everything beautifully. both on windows XP.[new]
Just playing around again, here's a couple of icons, one for
external links, and one for
near links.[new]
Link icons look odd at different text resolutions. How about just underlining external links?I've altered the default CSS in this vein [2], but being red-green colour-blind I'm not the best authority on colour schemes 
[new]
Ok, I'm using that. What was that about using #550 as the link color; do you prefer it? I really want to make the site usable for red-green colour-blind users as well!
[new]
I was just playing around with reducing "angry link salad" by removing the bold attribute from internal links; ignore it
Based on conversation on #wiki between kensanata, pmichaud, and heatherj:
what's special about wikis and copyright? as more and more people start to be authors and publishers, copyright starts to apply to them -- and not a small group of selected few like in the old days. similar to file sharing, in fact.
Can you give an example? when i write a page on a wiki, and 10 other people edit it, it no longer is my page -- i can only change its license (for example, if i want to print a book) by asking them all. in the old days, collaborating with so many people was much harder, so we had much less such situations. wiki doesn't really change the notion of copyright itself, it just presents more instances of interesting situations to deal with.
before collaborative software authoring, nobody thought about such things. then with free software etc. more people start thinking about it. and with wikis, now even non-programmers are faced with this stuff. so yes, "more instances of interesting situations". for some definition of "interesting". 
kensanata ends with: for my definition of "interesting" of course, current copyright is inadequate for the kind of society i want to live in.
in academia, we've had to deal with issues of multiple authorship for a very long time, long before collaborative software packages existed
writing academic papers is not "building" things. there are no artefacts that absolutely need to include existing artefacts.
the problem of colleagues showing their work to each other to get feedback- but then you'd have to share authorship- which lowers the value of the document... whereas in software devleopment, it drives up the value.
does getting feedback require authorship sharing? it depended entirely on the amount of feedback/contribution given
still, some people won't share their early drafts of papers for that reason.
the problem is similar to a department chair who insists on adding his name to all publications even though he does not contribute to them. Depends on the culture of the department/institution and the personalities of the researchers.
Define external redirect: OmniWeb