Durova wrote
There's a *baby with the bathwater* effect that
the participants in all such
sites should bear in mind. I am not completely opposed to a site like
*Wikipedia
Review*. Sometimes the dialog there impresses me and in at least one
instance I have a barnstar waiting for a *WR* contributor, if he decides to
disclose a matter openly. What detracts enormously from their credibility
as a critical site is how much they also serve as a forum for potshots and
sour grapes. And what's really sad is there are probably some people whose
bans would have been lifted by now if they hadn't gone there.
Yes, there is evidence that trying to "centralize" critics of Wikipedia on a
forum site doesn't do much to improve the standards of criticism. On the whole that is
WR's problem. Only threaded discussion - another problem. Editorial policy - another
problem. Tabloids are usually run for money, not influence (though not always).
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from
www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam