So perhaps a debate has crept up on us. I'm still in two minds about the
Forum for Encyclopedic Standards. But there are plenty of candidates for
the ArbCom; which therefore must have something of a reputation as an
institution putting down roots. I have signed up for the Systemic Bias
project, which (non-radically) might be saying 'more of same, but spread the
butter more evenly'. And the Version 1.0 and article review strand is not
going to go dormant, I suppose.
Seems there are many voices for solidifying the Wikipedia's current
achievements. And, while a natural empire-builder rather than consolidator
myself, I'm inclined to agree with this as a main thrust. Wikimedia can
hatch other projects. Wikipedia does a lot; it's the old goose with golden
eggs, despite the voices who want platinum and less of a farmyard smell.
Does it come down to saying that choices different flavours of consolidation
are the main issues where consensus is lacking, and on which progress might
be made?
I know that I think that another 12 months in the same vein, with added
server power, would do very nicely. The other matter that seems to me
central is simply to get the coverage of the humanities up to the kind of
intensity and engagement that science and technology has. Which I don't
think is utopian.
Charles