On 15/09/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Dan Grey wrote:
On 15/09/05, dpbsmith@verizon.net dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
I thought that there was consensus that Wikipedia a) is an encyclopedia, and b) is not "an indiscriminate collection of information."
I must say, I'm sure I've read: "Imagine a world where every single person is given free access to the sum of human knowledge. We don't have to imagine it. We're doing it" attributed to Jimbo, and I have never squared that with "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information."
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think Jimbo said the second one as well.
Personally, I don't mind indiscriminate information - that's what the whole world wide web is. Search engines like Google have made it their mission to make it usable, and I don't see why Wikipedia need be any different in our little web-within-the-web. (Tagging - which is what our categorisation could be seen as - seems to be the other approach, but as far as I can tell that's more hype than useful).
That violates [[WP:NOT]].
You miss my point. I'm not quite sure why we have WP:NOT, or what people feel the need for it.
Put it this way: I have the hypothesis that "[[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]] dictate perfectly what should and should not be in WP". Someone prove that wrong, and I'll come up with a new hypothesis based on that result :-).
Dan