geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/6/06, Steve Bennett wrote:
For exactly the same reason I think it is very poor
for us to have
900,000 (or more?) inactive user accounts. They don't harm us directly
- but they do vastly misrepresent the actual state of the project.
Every free internet forum has the same issue.
Few free interent "forum"s are encyclopedias.
Speaking for myself, the existence of Pokemon is not
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
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.