Steve Summit wrote:
Inclusion and notability policies ought to be based neither on what an anonymous contributor is interesting in writing, nor what a self-appointed policy wonk deems "notable" or "encyclopedic", but rather, on what some nontrivial numbers of our readers are interested in reading.
I think that is "could be", not "ought to be". The mission is not to maximise readership: as of early 2009, it still to "write the encyclopedia". You know, the old Wikipedia some of us have thought we are writing for a few years now.
As usual, there is the argument that if this other version of the mission was interesting enough to enough editors, they could fork. Not likely to happen, but it's a clarifying thought: really, how different would it be?
Charles