On 11/14/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts, so not every
single bit of information gets in. We are first and formost an
encyclopedia, not a data dump.
I agree (with the above quoted, and the part trimmed away).
What should differentiate Wikipedia from a specialised Wiki is (a) our
standards for NPOV, NOR, attribution, etc etc and (b) our intended audience.
A specialised Wiki - e.g. Memory Alpha - can assume a different audience
than we do. From what I've read of their (often very good) content, they
assume an audience of Star Trek fans.
They can also have different content policies than we do - e.g. dkosopedia,
where bias is fine and NPOV is not a policy.
What I have a problem with is the (stated or unstated) view that 'if we
allow articles on topic X, how will anyone take us seriously as an
encyclopedia?'
I don't see anything wrong with Wikipedia having a very well-written
coverage of Pokemon, for example. Written for a general audience,
comprehensive, NPOV, properly sourced, with no copyright violations - it
would be quite worthwhile.
We should not be embarassed by the wide variety of topics we cover. We
should only be embarassed of BAD ARTICLES.
-Matt