I think the fact that Wikipedia describes itself as "The Free Encyclopedia" provides a somewhat convincing reason to be an encyclopedia.
-Snowspinner
On Oct 22, 2004, at 7:02 PM, NSK wrote:
On Oct 22, 2004, at 12:44 PM, Simon Pulsifer wrote: I do, however, see some worrying trends. My concern is over the issue of notability.
There is absolutely no reason why WP should try to become an encyclopedia. In my site wikinerds.org I use the term "knowledge base" to describe my wikis, meaning that any kind of knowledge is accepted there.
I suggest WP to do the same: Stop trying to compete with Encyclopaedia Britannica and become a "neutral factual verifiable knowledge base".
I should also note that many WP articles in scientific and technical subjects have so little information that they are useful only to the general public who is totally ignorant of such things, while the scientists and technologists who have the knowledge will probably think that WP "is just another popular non-scientific site" and turn to other more specialised resources. WP should try to become less popularistic (articles in musical albums and movies shine, but many articles on hard science and technology just aren't good).
-- NSK Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l