On Oct 2, 2005, at 9:35 PM, JAY JG wrote:
To begin with, I do not think we should insist that every policy in Wikipedia be completely internally consistent, nor should we insist on that requirement for every statement by our fearless leader. There are natural conflicts that arise when one simultaneously tries to provide maximal knowledge at the macro level, and yet is faced with trying to put together an informative and useful product at the micro level.
Equally importantly, many people view "knowledge" to be something rather more refined than "compilations of facts".
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
But I think this is very important - inclusion doesn't mean prominence. I don't think there's any body of information that, given time and volunteers, can't be well organized. Especially if its creation is incremental. I mean, take what I think is one of our worst and most disjointed topics - the 2004 US Presidential Election controversy - and I think it's still basically pretty well organized. I look at other crufty things like Pokemon, and they're incredibly well organized. Much better organized than the philosophy articles, actually, which nobody seems to want to delete.
I'm not saying that [[Creationism]] should have every major creationist "scientist" included in the article with extensive summaries of all their publications. I'm not even saying that it should include links to them all. Or any of them. I'm not even saying it should have a link to [[List of creationists]]. But I see no reason not to have all the articles linking upward. The fate of more oddly esoteric articles doesn't need to be omission to succeed in refining and clarity. It can just be that weird and esoteric topics don't get linked to from many other topics.
-Snowspinner