On 5/6/06, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
geni geniice@gmail.com wrote: On 5/6/06, Steve Bennett wrote: > Speaking for myself, the existence of Pokemon is not directly a > problem. But Wikipedia would certainly be better off if somehow all > the effort that was expended on Pokemon articles was somehow invested > in other ways.
Pokemon are massive. How many pokemon can you name? How many uk canals (my area) can you name?I agree with Steve. My solution would be as I stated in "pedia split". Both groups would be happy. Both would have admins interested and dedicated in them. It's really not a question of what's huge at the moment. It's more a question of WP:NOT and how they fit into the sum of the world's knowledge. I'm sure there are elements of Pokemon that still deserve coverage by an encyclopedia, such as story and animation techniques and its impact on children, the economy, etc. Leave that here. Move the rest to Wikipop or whatever brand name you'd like to give it. If nothing else, 99% of the disputes over whether [insert 15-minute celebrity is encyclopedic or not would go away. That seems like a significant enough benefit to pursue.~~~~Pro-Lick
Strangely enough that idea sounds great. There are many people who are willing and able to develop articles. I am opposed to deletion simply because of its negative impact on people possibly staying on with wikipedia to do the massive number of editorial tasks that are needed by any large scale literature project.
By keeping their interest in developing they may move from the "pop" pedia to the more focused "professional" looking pedia which has a spectrum of topics which have developed to the point where people can actually quote them. Right now I would NEVER suggest to anyone that they quote wikipedia in any sort of scholarly work. This is because of the huge lack of control over which articles are at a post-draft stage. By separating articles by maturity, it would be clear which articles have been verified enough to provide a sufficient level where they are able to be quoted.
Of course, my rant above does not put any time limitations on the above. But I think that a decision about such issues as a lack of scholarly respect for the encyclopedia currently should be a factor in the time frame of any proposal.
Peter