Let's be honest: it doesn't look, feel and some articles are fantastic to
read and have a good depth of detail.
Ian
[[User:Poeloq]]
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 2:13 AM, Brian <Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu> wrote:
*whoosh*
On 7/23/08, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Man, one new yorker cartoon per article. Why didn't wikipedia think of
that?
****************************************
Because encyclopedias should not be relying on self-aggrandizing,
unfunny,
and poorly considered cartoons such as the New
Yorker; and we should be
focusing on legitimate information.
Case in point: Would the Barack Obama article be improved by the
inevitable
inclusion of the incredibly offensive and almost
universally criticized
cartoon of him in terrorist garb fist-bumping an afro wearing militant
Michelle Obama? Yes, that's certainly neutral point of view right there.
Ignoring for a second the epic fail in their poor taste attempt at
satire,
the New Yorker's cartoons are by definition
non-neutral, and as such
would
unduly skew any Wikipedia article they were
added to.
It's just more of a sign that Knol is not actually even attempting to be
a
competitor to Wikipedia, and rather a whole
different genre of product.
--
Dan Rosenthal
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l