On 5/6/06, Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
geni <geniice(a)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