[WikiEN-l] Re: Totally unscientific investigation...

[Phil Boswell]

"Matt Brown" <morven at gmail.com> wrote in 
message news:42f90dc00511150452r4a9f2cb5o9d8b0b9a32167aa at mail.gmail.com...
> Yes, I'm an eventualist.  From my point of view, Wikipedia has a long,
> long way to go, and that's not a bad thing.  It's that the sum total
> of useful human knowledge is so vast.  There are many subject areas
> that Wikipedia's coverage is scant or wholly lacking.  Yet, at the
> same time, there are articles on Wikipedia that are better than ANY
> other online resource.  I am sure there are some that are better than
> ANY published article, on or offline.  Isn't that something to feel
> good about?

Would it be really awful if, for something of actual interest to a 
reasonable number of people, Wikipedia provided the ONLY consolidated 
resource for information?

We have the awesome ability to pull together threads of information to 
create a tapestry of knowledge which could inform and delight. We have the 
capacity to create the biggest darn tapestry of this kind ever.

Instead entirely too many people are nitpicking about whether we're using 
the correct gauge of thread, and whether we're allowed to weave in this 
particular manner, making a round of Mornington Crescent sound positively 
staid and reasonable.

Some are even burning little holes in it because they don't like some of the 
stitches, bringing to mind the "Family Tree of the House of Black" from 
Harry Potter.

May the motto of Wikipedia never become "toujours pur"...
-- 
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]