David Gerard wrote:
2009/2/9 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
To pick another example. The reference desks (which I think are great) are technically a bit divorced from the encyclopedia building, but I think are a legitimate side operation, especially when article do (sometimes) get improved as a result. It's also legitimate because some people prefer to ask humans a question and have them look it up, rather than look things up themselves. The side effect is quite a lot of chatter around the questions and answers.
It's definitely right in line with the mission. Also a chance for us to show off our erudition.
(e.g. going down the pub, there's three Wikipedians at the table talking obscure military history they've picked up in the course of just hanging around and a fourth person looking slightly boggled.)
I tend to agree; there are occasions where two editors can engage constructively in an academic discourse which would probably not attract much interest on an article's talk page. Far better that they sort it out between themselves, and if that happens to be on-Wiki, dissenting editors can be directed to such a subpage for further discussion; with the proviso that such discussions be flagged on article talk pages, if they are of sufficient moment, and potential contributors be made aware that those discussions are ongoing.
Personally, I'm usually the fourth person, totally boggled as to why people care about "Celebrity Come Dancing" in the slightest, as an unconstructive intersection of two concepts lacking in long-term cultural significance, but then, perhaps that's why I've become more interested in medieval Wiltshire monasteries of late. P.Ss, if you know of anyone who would, er, pay me money for doing this, please let me know, as I do miss being able to afford cheese. And meat.
Regards