On 12/17/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
My hope from all this is that it will renew our appreciation for some of the coverage Wikipedia gives to pop cultural and "low-notability" topics that have been under steady pressure from merging and deleting for a long time now. It's true that our quality is sometimes lacking on these areas, but they're topics that people actually want to read and come to Wikipedia looking for information on. It's silly to shoot ourselves in the foot by turning them away.
We don't turn them away. Pop culture is a huge part of Wikipedia. Of course, the absolute most revoltingly bad parts of it we kill off. But your implication that we're slowly moving towards some state where there will be very little or no pop culture on Wikipedia is off the mark.
Indeed. Depending on the final details of their policies, of course, I might be inclined to add a few articles I know of that have been pointlessly trimmed down to nothing on Wikipedia. I'm not interested in the revenue, just in making the information we've buried in old revisions "live" again.
I guess one nice thing about Knols is you don't need to reference your material, you just say that you *are* the reference. I understand why we insist on referencing everything...but there are times when you'd pray for any information at all, even if it's not referenced.
Steve