--- Henry Tan-Tenn <share2002nov(a)lomaji.com> wrote: Nice story. It focuses on our strong points and on areas where we need more work (aside: which could be helped-along by some type of approved article system and then outreach to librarians and educators). The new Britannica FUD was interesting: Their new take is that Wikipedia is too detailed and one of the things that makes EB great is that they make careful decisions on what is most important to include. So that looks to me like they are giving up and declaring their much smaller size and long time between updates to be 'features.' :) What they have lost grip of is that Wikipedia is redefining what an encyclopedia can be or even what one should be. That said, we do need to make sure that long articles are started with good-sized lead sections that give a quick summary of the topic (we might even want to encourage larger lead sections so they could approach the size of concise encyclopedia articles in their own right). We also need to make sure long articles do not present more detail on a page that is appropriate for that level of article and to make sure that the detail stays on-topic. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Summary_style -- mav __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail