[WikiEN-l] "Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement"

[Charles Matthews]

On 4 April 2012 16:24, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
<snip>

> I would suggest as a modest proposal that we do away with "Wikipedia is an
> encyclopedia".  I've already suggested that we do away with the IAR
> clause "to improve the encyclopedia".
>

Oh, I don't know, it still has explanatory value. "Comprehensive
topic-based tertiary source" has twice as many syllables.

>
> "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" constantly gets misinterpreted to mean "we
> may never allow other concerns to take precedence over being
> encyclopediac".  This is wrong.
>

Mmm. There is a certain rather blinkered singlemindedness that can set in
with some people, so perhaps I know what you are driving at. But why do you
think such people would be better at interpreting other attempts to define
the scope of the mission? The problem is surely not so much in the wording,
as in the approach.

In fact I'm in favour of the rearguard action that regards the pressure to
define key concepts ever more precisely as the expulsion of common sense.

Charles

>
>