On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:
I would prefer we limit content to encyclopedic
content. Obviously
aggregating news, especially about individuals, is incompatible with that
purpose.
Large amounts of Wikipedia articles on recent topics are nothing more
than aggregating from news sources. There is a spectrum between that
and summarising from secondary sources that have had time to assess,
review, and come to a reasoned conclusion about a topic area. But too
much is at the 'news' and 'current affairs' end of the spectrum. It
*is* a problem, and it always has been.
I wonder, how much of the early editing (first 2-3 years), was on news
topics? How much was on historical topics? ANd has that changed over
time?
Carcharoth