Wikipedia: The encyclopedia anyone who isn't a douchebag can edit
On 6/25/06, George Chriss GChriss@psu.edu wrote:
As much as "love in knowledge" is true, "anyone can edit" distinguishes us from other knowledge--based projects, such as Encyclopaedia Britannica. The slogan is terribly catchy, and we still have readers unaware of the fact that they can edit.
If I had to give Wikimedia projects a new, more accurate slogan, it would be "organizing knowledge by open editing". Perhaps the Foundation proper should adopt "for people that love sharing knowledge"?
-George [[User:GChriss]]
<quote who="Erik Moeller"> > On 6/25/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp@gmail.com> wrote: >> How about "New editors always welcome!" - then, the assumption is that >> we will give *anyone* a *chance* (as opposed to implying that we will >> let anyone edit, no matter how destructive they are). > > I agree in principle that the slogan "the free encyclopedia that > anyone can edit" is overly simplistic. It reminds me of the famous > saying, "I would never want to belong to any club that would have > someone like me for a member." It's more of a technical definition > than one of principles and goals -- and can easily be confused with > the latter. > > I believe that we need to highlight the mission of providing a great, > free encyclopedia, along with the core principle _how_ we want to > accomplish it. And the single most important principle I can think of > here is not "anyone can edit". It's not even NPOV or any other policy. > It's "WikiLove" -- of which our commitment to openness is only an > expression. We share a love of knowledge, and we treat everyone who > shares the same love with respect and goodwill. (That's the idea, at > least.) > > If I wanted a three word slogan for Wikipedia, it would be something > like "Love in Knowledge": emphasizing the core principle of WikiLove > as well as the overarching goal to collect the sum of all human > knowledge. Come to think of it, "Love in Knowledge" might be a nice > slogan for the Wikimedia Foundation. Or is it too kitschy? > >> We're not elitist at all. The tone of most of our articles is very >> folksy and approachable > > I'm not sure about "folksy," but of course an encyclopedia should be > approachable. My idea of the perfect Wikipedia article is one which > presupposes very little, and allows me to zoom into any level of > detail which I require (following links and references to primary and > secondary sources if Wikipedia itself is exhausted). Naturally, by > "presupposing little", I don't mean that every concept needs to be > explained in every article: that's what links are for. > > "Elitism of results", as Jimmy put it, doesn't mean to me that we > already believe that we've created the best encyclopedia in history. > It only means that we believe that we should, and more importantly, > that we can. And I think that these beliefs are firmly rooted in > Wikipedia's culture. > > Erik > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l