On Oct 2, 2005, at 9:35 PM, JAY JG wrote:
To begin with, I do not think we should insist that every policy in
Wikipedia be completely internally consistent, nor should we insist
on that requirement for every statement by our fearless leader.
There are natural conflicts that arise when one simultaneously
tries to provide maximal knowledge at the macro level, and yet is
faced with trying to put together an informative and useful product
at the micro level.
Equally importantly, many people view "knowledge" to be something
rather more refined than "compilations of facts".
Jay.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
But I think this is very important - inclusion doesn't mean
prominence. I don't think there's any body of information that, given
time and volunteers, can't be well organized. Especially if its
creation is incremental. I mean, take what I think is one of our
worst and most disjointed topics - the 2004 US Presidential Election
controversy - and I think it's still basically pretty well organized.
I look at other crufty things like Pokemon, and they're incredibly
well organized. Much better organized than the philosophy articles,
actually, which nobody seems to want to delete.
I'm not saying that [[Creationism]] should have every major
creationist "scientist" included in the article with extensive
summaries of all their publications. I'm not even saying that it
should include links to them all. Or any of them. I'm not even saying
it should have a link to [[List of creationists]]. But I see no
reason not to have all the articles linking upward. The fate of more
oddly esoteric articles doesn't need to be omission to succeed in
refining and clarity. It can just be that weird and esoteric topics
don't get linked to from many other topics.
-Snowspinner