kosebamse(a)gmx.net wrote:
Alphax alphasigmax at
gmail.com wrote at Tue Nov 15
12:15:00 UTC 2005:
What worries me is that with our growing
popularity, we're going to have
more experts arriving on our doorstep, trying to write articles on their
specialist areas, and leave in disgust when some 2-bit moron votes "d,
nn. cruft".
As far as I can say, that has always been a serious problem. It's not a
matter of elitism. An expert who is used to discussing his views with
well-informed people on an academic level will not enjoy the experience of
having to defend basic and established knowledge of his field against
schoolkids whose only expertise is with video games. I am offering no
opinion on the desirability of it, but the latter probably form a very
sizable fraction of our user base.
Once upon a time, I was a kid who read encyclopedias... although I find
our video game articles interesting, it's the technical/Real Life
details that interest me, not the plot-related "and here we see a
detailed breakdown of all the weapons available, powerups, world
details, monsters...". Things like "although it was brought out at the
same time as (X), the (Y) feature made it more popular" *do*, because
it's factual, not descriptive fiction.
Or something.
As for the "X in popular culture" plague, I recently (well, a few weeks
ago) found one of these in one of the first article merges I did. I
understand that the information has to go *somewhere*; it's just a
matter of where... should every known appearance of railguns in ficiton
appear in the "railgun" article, or be spread out between the articles
on a dozen games, movies and books?
--
Alphax -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP