Should Wikipedia accept original research or use less-than-ideal sources in cases where there is little or no existing literature? Nope: the reader would have no way to establish whether they could trust an article's contents. It might work if you had those articles controlled by verifiable experts, but again, Wikipedia's not that encyclopedia.
I feel that if I go to Wikipedia to look up something relatively notable, and Wikipedia's response is "We don't have an article on that", then Wikipedia has failed me. If Wikipedia's response is "GNAA's website is X, and we couldn't verify any information beyond that, but here are some blogs", then it has performed much better.
On a similar note . . . a fortnight ago there was a spate of AfDs for furry fandom articles, including a few furry conventions. Many of these articles were little more than "X is a furry convention in Y occuring at Z, it has 1000 people attend each year here's their website". Nobody was actually disagreeing that this was the case, but there was a lot of "Furrycruft!", "Wikipedia isn't a dictionary!" and "if you can't find a reliable 3rd party published source, you must convict!" flying around.
What I ended up doing was creating [[furry convention]], which is essentially "[here's all the stuff we know in general about furry conventions from the reliable sources], if you want to know more about PafCon in particular, you want to go look at their website and at WikiFur, which is an encyclopedia that can contain original research and unverifiable material".
Of course, PafCon doesn't have a website because it's a fictional convention, but you get the idea. If Wikipedia doesn't want to write about topics, a good alternative is to do some kind of portal to direct people to those who *do* want to write about it, as long as they are doing so competently. That's helpful for the user because they get the information they're looking for, and it's helpful for Wikipedia because it avoids repeated creation of pages about "non-notable" topics (which inevitably result in a certain proportion of angst-filled AfDs that burn some of our most dedicated contributors out).
--- Laurence "GreenReaper" Parry http://greenreaper.co.uk - http://wikifur.com
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 20:36:05 -0500, "Laurence Parry" greenreaper@hotmail.com wrote:
Of course, PafCon doesn't have a website because it's a fictional convention, but you get the idea. If Wikipedia doesn't want to write about topics, a good alternative is to do some kind of portal to direct people to those who *do* want to write about it, as long as they are doing so competently. That's helpful for the user because they get the information they're looking for, and it's helpful for Wikipedia because it avoids repeated creation of pages about "non-notable" topics (which inevitably result in a certain proportion of angst-filled AfDs that burn some of our most dedicated contributors out).
I have absolutely no problem with this. The same battle is being fought right now in respect of an article on Star Trek ranks *not* mentioned in the films and shows. Is the concept documentable? May well be. Does that mean we should list every one and picture the insignia? Hell no. There seems to be some kind of misunderstanding in respect of this kind of content; if the concept is verifiable that does not make every example of it worthy of inclusion, it means we can have a referenced article on the concept. And then send people somewhere the fans can write whatever the hell they like, for more information. I don't see any downside to this approach, other than that "our coverage of foo" becomes less complete. Which, in many circumstances, is precisely as it should be.
Guy (JzG)
I for one think it's pathetic that Wikipedia is giving up on the mission of being a complete encyclopedia because there exist specialty sites on particular areas of knowledge.
On 11/29/06, Laurence Parry greenreaper@hotmail.com wrote:
Should Wikipedia accept original research or use less-than-ideal
sources
in cases where there is little or no existing literature? Nope: the reader would have no way to establish whether they could trust an article's
contents.
It might work if you had those articles controlled by verifiable experts, but again, Wikipedia's not that encyclopedia.
I feel that if I go to Wikipedia to look up something relatively notable, and Wikipedia's response is "We don't have an article on that", then Wikipedia has failed me. If Wikipedia's response is "GNAA's website is X, and we couldn't verify any information beyond that, but here are some blogs", then it has performed much better.
On a similar note . . . a fortnight ago there was a spate of AfDs for furry fandom articles, including a few furry conventions. Many of these articles were little more than "X is a furry convention in Y occuring at Z, it has 1000 people attend each year here's their website". Nobody was actually disagreeing that this was the case, but there was a lot of "Furrycruft!", "Wikipedia isn't a dictionary!" and "if you can't find a reliable 3rd party published source, you must convict!" flying around.
What I ended up doing was creating [[furry convention]], which is essentially "[here's all the stuff we know in general about furry conventions from the reliable sources], if you want to know more about PafCon in particular, you want to go look at their website and at WikiFur, which is an encyclopedia that can contain original research and unverifiable material".
Of course, PafCon doesn't have a website because it's a fictional convention, but you get the idea. If Wikipedia doesn't want to write about topics, a good alternative is to do some kind of portal to direct people to those who *do* want to write about it, as long as they are doing so competently. That's helpful for the user because they get the information they're looking for, and it's helpful for Wikipedia because it avoids repeated creation of pages about "non-notable" topics (which inevitably result in a certain proportion of angst-filled AfDs that burn some of our most dedicated contributors out).
Laurence "GreenReaper" Parry http://greenreaper.co.uk - http://wikifur.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted! Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:32:21 -0500
I for one think it's pathetic that Wikipedia is giving up on the mission of being a complete encyclopedia because there exist specialty sites on particular areas of knowledge.
I disagree. Wikipedia can't be all things to all people, and I think it's silly to try. Wikipedia should consider itself one of a community of wikis, specifically, the encyclopedic one, with academic standards. Why not allow for there to be multiple sources of information, and let the different ones specialize in different things and get good at what they do?
Tony/GTB
_________________________________________________________________ All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial! http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?href=http://clk...
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted! Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:32:21 -0500
I for one think it's pathetic that Wikipedia is giving up on the mission
of
being a complete encyclopedia because there exist specialty sites on particular areas of knowledge.
I disagree. Wikipedia can't be all things to all people, and I think it's silly to try. Wikipedia should consider itself one of a community of wikis, specifically, the encyclopedic one, with academic standards. Why not allow for there to be multiple sources of information, and let the different ones specialize in different things and get good at what they do?
Why can't Wikipedia be all things to all people?
I have nothing against specialists, but I also see no reason that they shouldn't be subsumed in the gaping maw of Wikipedia.
One of the great things about the move to electronic media is that you finally have the opportunity to erase the artificial divide between general scope and specific detail that is necessary in the print world.
On 11/30/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Why can't Wikipedia be all things to all people?
See [[Cat]]. There is a finite number of pics you can put in one article.
On 11/30/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Why can't Wikipedia be all things to all people?
See [[Cat]]. There is a finite number of pics you can put in one article.
But not in one Wikipedia!
On 11/30/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Why can't Wikipedia be all things to all people?
See [[Cat]]. There is a finite number of pics you can put in one article.
But not in one Wikipedia!
Follow-up to that: [[Cat]] shows the inevitable problem of mergitis. Atomize articles, I say!
From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted! Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:51:19 -0500
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted! Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:32:21 -0500
I for one think it's pathetic that Wikipedia is giving up on the
mission
of
being a complete encyclopedia because there exist specialty sites on particular areas of knowledge.
I disagree. Wikipedia can't be all things to all people, and I think
it's
silly to try. Wikipedia should consider itself one of a community of wikis, specifically, the encyclopedic one, with academic standards. Why not allow for there to be multiple sources of information, and let the different ones specialize in different things and get good at what they do?
Why can't Wikipedia be all things to all people?
I have nothing against specialists, but I also see no reason that they shouldn't be subsumed in the gaping maw of Wikipedia.
One of the great things about the move to electronic media is that you finally have the opportunity to erase the artificial divide between general scope and specific detail that is necessary in the print world.
I guess one could try that, but the vision of Wikipedia that I've been working with is that it aims to be an *encyclopedia*, understanding that word to carry certain connotations about summarizing information from secondary sources. I think that's a worthy goal, and I'm not ready to abandon it yet in favor of something I frankly don't believe in.
Consider Wookiepedia, the Star Wars wiki. That's a great resource for all things Star Wars, I'm sure, and it would be a significantly weaker resource if they required that all their contributions be sourced in previously published sources. They need original research. At Wikipedia, meanwhile, our article on the French Revolution would be considerably weaker if we didn't insist that all material be sourced in other publications. We need verifiability. I'm quite happy to go to one place for original research, and another for verifiable information.
Consider AboutUs.org, a domain directory Wiki. They aim to cover every domain on the web, with directory type information. Our policies would be useless for them, and their content is useless to us, for the most part. Hence, two wikis.
I agree that all of this different information should be available, I just don't see WP as the top level of the heirarchy; I see us as one of many wikis. Like it or not, we're specialists - we specialize in well-sourced articles on topics for which such sources exist. Let someone like Wikiindex take the ceiling; we've got a comfortable niche where we are.
Tony/GTB
_________________________________________________________________ All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial! http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?href=http://clk...
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted! Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:32:21 -0500
I for one think it's pathetic that Wikipedia is giving up on the
mission
of
being a complete encyclopedia because there exist specialty sites on particular areas of knowledge.
I disagree. Wikipedia can't be all things to all people, and I think
it's
silly to try. Wikipedia should consider itself one of a community of wikis, specifically, the encyclopedic one, with academic standards. Why not allow for there to be multiple sources of information, and let the different ones specialize in different things and get good at what they do?
Why can't Wikipedia be all things to all people?
I have nothing against specialists, but I also see no reason that they shouldn't be subsumed in the gaping maw of Wikipedia.
One of the great things about the move to electronic media is that you finally have the opportunity to erase the artificial divide between
general
scope and specific detail that is necessary in the print world.
I guess one could try that, but the vision of Wikipedia that I've been working with is that it aims to be an *encyclopedia*, understanding that word to carry certain connotations about summarizing information from secondary sources. I think that's a worthy goal, and I'm not ready to abandon it yet in favor of something I frankly don't believe in.
Consider Wookiepedia, the Star Wars wiki. That's a great resource for all things Star Wars, I'm sure, and it would be a significantly weaker resource if they required that all their contributions be sourced in previously published sources. They need original research. At Wikipedia, meanwhile, our article on the French Revolution would be considerably weaker if we didn't insist that all material be sourced in other publications. We need verifiability. I'm quite happy to go to one place for original research, and another for verifiable information.
Consider AboutUs.org, a domain directory Wiki. They aim to cover every domain on the web, with directory type information. Our policies would be useless for them, and their content is useless to us, for the most part. Hence, two wikis.
I agree that all of this different information should be available, I just don't see WP as the top level of the heirarchy; I see us as one of many wikis. Like it or not, we're specialists - we specialize in well-sourced articles on topics for which such sources exist. Let someone like Wikiindex take the ceiling; we've got a comfortable niche where we are.
I'd just like to remind people that Wikipedia was doing quite well in the Age Before Required Sourcing.
You may consider yourself a specialist "in well-sourced articles on topics for which such sources exist" but don't tar me with that same brush.
You use the words "we" and "us" a bit too cavalierly, I think. Wikipedia is healthiest when it allows any number of motivations for contributors, rather than enforcing a Platonic model of the perfect Wikipedian.
From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted! Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:21:21 -0500
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted! Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:32:21 -0500
I'd just like to remind people that Wikipedia was doing quite well in the Age Before Required Sourcing.
You may consider yourself a specialist "in well-sourced articles on topics for which such sources exist" but don't tar me with that same brush.
You use the words "we" and "us" a bit too cavalierly, I think. Wikipedia is healthiest when it allows any number of motivations for contributors, rather than enforcing a Platonic model of the perfect Wikipedian.
You're reading a bit more into my words than I ever intended, but I'll lay off on the idealistic "we". I don't think Wikipedia is healthier without sourcing, but I'll allow for disagreement there. What we're dealing with is a conflict of visions of what Wikipedia ought to be. Do we strive for completeness and inclusiveness or for better sourcing and higher quality coverage? I identify more with the drive for quality, and I'm comfortable looking elsewhere for certain topics, which can't be covered in the way I think Wikipedia should.
GTB
_________________________________________________________________ Fixing up the home? Live Search can help http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&loca...
Think of it this way...
Wikipedia is like a party. For a successful party you need lots of people. However, does that mean you'll indiscriminantly let people through the door? Like the people prone to violence? The convicted sex offenders? President Bush? You may want a lot of people, but the party's only good if it's the kind of people you'd like to have at a party.
Wikipedia is proving to be a successful party with 1.5 million articles. However, the problem is that there were little standards at the beginning for who was let through the door. Now that we've recognized the problem, what articles can enter the big party of Wikipedia should be a bit more restrictive.
However, as I see it, as long as articles comply with verifiability/reliable sources, no original research, neutral point of view, What Wikipedia Is Not, and copyright requirements, then let them through the door.
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted! Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:21:21 -0500
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted! Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:32:21 -0500
I'd just like to remind people that Wikipedia was doing quite well in the Age Before Required Sourcing.
You may consider yourself a specialist "in well-sourced articles on
topics
for which such sources exist" but don't tar me with that same brush.
You use the words "we" and "us" a bit too cavalierly, I think. Wikipedia
is
healthiest when it allows any number of motivations for contributors, rather than enforcing a Platonic model of the perfect Wikipedian.
You're reading a bit more into my words than I ever intended, but I'll lay off on the idealistic "we". I don't think Wikipedia is healthier without sourcing, but I'll allow for disagreement there. What we're dealing with is a conflict of visions of what Wikipedia ought to be. Do we strive for completeness and inclusiveness or for better sourcing and higher quality coverage? I identify more with the drive for quality, and I'm comfortable looking elsewhere for certain topics, which can't be covered in the way I think Wikipedia should.
GTB
Fixing up the home? Live Search can help
http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&loca...
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I don't think Wikipedia is like a party. I think Wikipedia is a like a collectively written interlinked website.
To be a bit less snarky, I think trying to draw lessons for the governance and rules of Wikipedia from how to throw a good party is, if not a fool's errand, not really the best endeavor.
Especially if the lesson you draw is that thing you need to do is exclude the wrong kind of people through the door.
And I fail to see that "the problem is that there were little [sic] standards at the beginning for who was let through the door". There doesn't seem to be much evidence of that.
On 11/30/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Think of it this way...
Wikipedia is like a party. For a successful party you need lots of people. However, does that mean you'll indiscriminantly let people through the door? Like the people prone to violence? The convicted sex offenders? President Bush? You may want a lot of people, but the party's only good if it's the kind of people you'd like to have at a party.
Wikipedia is proving to be a successful party with 1.5 million articles. However, the problem is that there were little standards at the beginning for who was let through the door. Now that we've recognized the problem, what articles can enter the big party of Wikipedia should be a bit more restrictive.
However, as I see it, as long as articles comply with verifiability/reliable sources, no original research, neutral point of view, What Wikipedia Is Not, and copyright requirements, then let them through the door.
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted! Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:21:21 -0500
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
>From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com >Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org >To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted! >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:32:21 -0500 >
I'd just like to remind people that Wikipedia was doing quite well in
the
Age Before Required Sourcing.
You may consider yourself a specialist "in well-sourced articles on
topics
for which such sources exist" but don't tar me with that same brush.
You use the words "we" and "us" a bit too cavalierly, I think.
Wikipedia
is
healthiest when it allows any number of motivations for contributors, rather than enforcing a Platonic model of the perfect Wikipedian.
You're reading a bit more into my words than I ever intended, but I'll
lay
off on the idealistic "we". I don't think Wikipedia is healthier
without
sourcing, but I'll allow for disagreement there. What we're dealing
with
is a conflict of visions of what Wikipedia ought to be. Do we strive for completeness and inclusiveness or for better sourcing and higher quality coverage? I identify more with the drive for quality, and I'm
comfortable
looking elsewhere for certain topics, which can't be covered in the way
I
think Wikipedia should.
GTB
Fixing up the home? Live Search can help
http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&loca...
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:51:19 -0500, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I have nothing against specialists, but I also see no reason that they shouldn't be subsumed in the gaping maw of Wikipedia.
Canonical policies on neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability?
Guy (JzG)
On 11/30/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:51:19 -0500, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I have nothing against specialists, but I also see no reason that they shouldn't be subsumed in the gaping maw of Wikipedia.
Canonical policies on neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability?
Canonical, shmanonical. I was talking about specialists, not fabulists.
The Cunctator wrote:
Why can't Wikipedia be all things to all people?
Hear hear!
When I finally became completely sick of the menagerie of stub templates that decorated the bottoms of most of the pages I saw, I didn't go on a grand crusade to delete them all from Wikipedia. Instead I just edited my stylesheet and made them invisible. It'd be neat if we could do that with entire articles, being able to eliminate everything in [[Category:Fictional]] or [[Category:High schools]] from one's personal view of Wikipedia could have saved a lot of bloodshed over the years.
On 01/12/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Why can't Wikipedia be all things to all people?
Hear hear!
When I finally became completely sick of the menagerie of stub templates that decorated the bottoms of most of the pages I saw, I didn't go on a grand crusade to delete them all from Wikipedia. Instead I just edited my stylesheet and made them invisible. It'd be neat if we could do that with entire articles, being able to eliminate everything in [[Category:Fictional]] or [[Category:High schools]] from one's personal view of Wikipedia could have saved a lot of bloodshed over the years.
I agree with both of your sentiments, we are large enough to contain an incredible amount of information about a myriad subjects. My approach is more practical: if you don't want to read articles about Pokemon characters, don't.
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted! Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:32:21 -0500
I for one think it's pathetic that Wikipedia is giving up on the mission of being a complete encyclopedia because there exist specialty sites on particular areas of knowledge.
I disagree. Wikipedia can't be all things to all people, and I think it's silly to try. Wikipedia should consider itself one of a community of wikis, specifically, the encyclopedic one, with academic standards. Why not allow for there to be multiple sources of information, and let the different ones specialize in different things and get good at what they do?
Well, the biggest problem with that is that the other sources invariably don't hold themselves to as high a standard as Wikipedia. Is the content free? Is it written from a neutral point of view? Is it verifiable? Is the project controlled by a non-profit charity? Are there ads plastered all over the place?
Wikipedia can't be all things to all people, but it should strive to be a complete encyclopedia.
Anthony
From: Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted! Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:49:59 -0500
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted! Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:32:21 -0500
I for one think it's pathetic that Wikipedia is giving up on the
mission of
being a complete encyclopedia because there exist specialty sites on particular areas of knowledge.
I disagree. Wikipedia can't be all things to all people, and I think
it's
silly to try. Wikipedia should consider itself one of a community of
wikis,
specifically, the encyclopedic one, with academic standards. Why not
allow
for there to be multiple sources of information, and let the different
ones
specialize in different things and get good at what they do?
Well, the biggest problem with that is that the other sources invariably don't hold themselves to as high a standard as Wikipedia. Is the content free? Is it written from a neutral point of view? Is it verifiable? Is the project controlled by a non-profit charity? Are there ads plastered all over the place?
Wikipedia can't be all things to all people, but it should strive to be a complete encyclopedia.
I agree. It's just the definition of "encyclopedia" where we seem to differ. I think an encyclopedia is a teriary source, grounded in independent research.
GTB
_________________________________________________________________ Get free, personalized commercial-free online radio with MSN Radio powered by Pandora http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001
Tony Jacobs wrote:
From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com
I for one think it's pathetic that Wikipedia is giving up on the mission of being a complete encyclopedia because there exist specialty sites on particular areas of knowledge.
I disagree. Wikipedia can't be all things to all people, and I think it's silly to try. Wikipedia should consider itself one of a community of wikis, specifically, the encyclopedic one, with academic standards. Why not allow for there to be multiple sources of information, and let the different ones specialize in different things and get good at what they do?
I agree with Cunc that such a turn of events would be pathetic, but I don't think we are there yet. There are, nevertheless, some busy people who would like us to go down that path.
It's not a matter of being all things to all people, nor is it a matter of an expansive view that would negate standards of quality. I have no debate with other wikis that want to specialize; such wikis would make for a healthy environment. The fact that these other wikis would not be bound by NPOV would make for a dynamic situation, but not one where we should abandon those topics.
Ec
On 11/30/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I for one think it's pathetic that Wikipedia is giving up on the mission of being a complete encyclopedia because there exist specialty sites on particular areas of knowledge.
I agree with you to the extent that verifiable subjects with sufficient sources that would be on topic in a specialist encyclopedia should be in Wikipedia.
For example, I would hate to see articles on my pet subjects deleted off Wikipedia because 'they'd work better in a specialist encyclopedia'. E.g. there's a specialist Wiki encyclopedia for cameras, CameraPedia. I'm dreading the day someone tries to delete [[Canon T90]] as "Cameracruft - move to CameraPedia".
Subjects that require original research or are off-topic in other ways e.g. being howtos or reviews instead of encyclopedia articles DO fit best elsewhere, though.
-Matt
On 11/30/06, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I for one think it's pathetic that Wikipedia is giving up on the mission
of
being a complete encyclopedia because there exist specialty sites on particular areas of knowledge.
I agree with you to the extent that verifiable subjects with sufficient sources that would be on topic in a specialist encyclopedia should be in Wikipedia.
For example, I would hate to see articles on my pet subjects deleted off Wikipedia because 'they'd work better in a specialist encyclopedia'. E.g. there's a specialist Wiki encyclopedia for cameras, CameraPedia. I'm dreading the day someone tries to delete [[Canon T90]] as "Cameracruft - move to CameraPedia".
Subjects that require original research or are off-topic in other ways e.g. being howtos or reviews instead of encyclopedia articles DO fit best elsewhere, though.
I agree with you on reviews but I'm not convinced by how-tos.
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:32:21 -0500, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I for one think it's pathetic that Wikipedia is giving up on the mission of being a complete encyclopedia because there exist specialty sites on particular areas of knowledge.
I don't think it is. The point here is not that it's giving up on completeness, it's that it's *not* giving up on being an *encyclopaedia*, compiled from credible secondary sources.
Guy (JzG)