On 11/14/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts, so not every single bit of information gets in. We are first and formost an encyclopedia, not a data dump.
I agree (with the above quoted, and the part trimmed away).
What should differentiate Wikipedia from a specialised Wiki is (a) our standards for NPOV, NOR, attribution, etc etc and (b) our intended audience.
A specialised Wiki - e.g. Memory Alpha - can assume a different audience than we do. From what I've read of their (often very good) content, they assume an audience of Star Trek fans.
They can also have different content policies than we do - e.g. dkosopedia, where bias is fine and NPOV is not a policy.
What I have a problem with is the (stated or unstated) view that 'if we allow articles on topic X, how will anyone take us seriously as an encyclopedia?'
I don't see anything wrong with Wikipedia having a very well-written coverage of Pokemon, for example. Written for a general audience, comprehensive, NPOV, properly sourced, with no copyright violations - it would be quite worthwhile.
We should not be embarassed by the wide variety of topics we cover. We should only be embarassed of BAD ARTICLES.
-Matt