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