Durova wrote

There's a *baby with the bathwater* effect that the participants in all such sites should bear in mind. I am not completely opposed to a site like *Wikipedia Review*. Sometimes the dialog there impresses me and in at least one instance I have a barnstar waiting for a *WR* contributor, if he decides to disclose a matter openly. What detracts enormously from their credibility as a critical site is how much they also serve as a forum for potshots and sour grapes. And what's really sad is there are probably some people whose bans would have been lifted by now if they hadn't gone there.

Yes, there is evidence that trying to "centralize" critics of Wikipedia on a forum site doesn't do much to improve the standards of criticism. On the whole that is WR's problem. Only threaded discussion - another problem. Editorial policy - another problem. Tabloids are usually run for money, not influence (though not always).

Charles

----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam