Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not everything belongs in here.
Travel info belongs in Wikitravel.
Dictionary stuff belongs in Wiktionary and so on.
The fact it's not a doctor or a pharmacist is just common sense.
You may think giving the advice is useful, but it isn't unless it comes from
an expert.
Mgm
On 2/19/07, George Chriss <GChriss(a)psu.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:52:47 +1100 English Wikipedia wrote:
On 2/19/07, George Chriss <GChriss(a)psu.edu> wrote:
Even with a general site disclaimer, the above
information may be
non-encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, a doctor, a
pharmacist, a
drug
I find it frustrating how often useful information is removed under
the single principle of "Wikipedia is not a ...". Explaining how
to
use a coffee plunger? "Wikipedia is not a how-to..." - yes, but
what
surely an explanation is an essential part of the article. Links to
articles that demonstrate the concept of [[One deal a day]]?
"Wikipedia is not a repository of links". Mentioning the local
tourist
attractions and best restaurants of a small town? "Wikipedia is not a
travel guide" - yes, but that's probably the most useful thing you
could write about a small town.
Is it time we replaced WP:NOT with "Wikipedia is not an
encyclopaedia.
It's unique, and it's just trying to be useful to people, dammit."
Steve
Hi,
Wikibooks or Wikitravel would be good homes for the items mentioned
above. Part of Wikipedia's appeal, at least to me, is that good authors are
very picky about choosing relevant information that best illustrates an
abstract subject. To borrow the example: I know that a pancake comes from
a Bisquick box, but what if I want to know what a pancake **really** is?
-George
en: [[User:GChriss]]
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l