"Matt Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote in message news:42f90dc00511150452r4a9f2cb5o9d8b0b9a32167aa@mail.gmail.com...
Yes, I'm an eventualist. From my point of view, Wikipedia has a long, long way to go, and that's not a bad thing. It's that the sum total of useful human knowledge is so vast. There are many subject areas that Wikipedia's coverage is scant or wholly lacking. Yet, at the same time, there are articles on Wikipedia that are better than ANY other online resource. I am sure there are some that are better than ANY published article, on or offline. Isn't that something to feel good about?
Would it be really awful if, for something of actual interest to a reasonable number of people, Wikipedia provided the ONLY consolidated resource for information?
We have the awesome ability to pull together threads of information to create a tapestry of knowledge which could inform and delight. We have the capacity to create the biggest darn tapestry of this kind ever.
Instead entirely too many people are nitpicking about whether we're using the correct gauge of thread, and whether we're allowed to weave in this particular manner, making a round of Mornington Crescent sound positively staid and reasonable.
Some are even burning little holes in it because they don't like some of the stitches, bringing to mind the "Family Tree of the House of Black" from Harry Potter.
May the motto of Wikipedia never become "toujours pur"...