Marc Riddell wrote:
I don't believe that is the point. Rather,
should Wikipedia (or anyone or
anything associated with it) be constantly criticizing other sites - and, in
the process, be calling attention to them. We are better than that.
7/27/07 12:27 PM, Bryan Derksen at bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca wrote:
It's not constant, it's only been for the past
couple of days.
Criticism of other sites has been occurring only in the past couple of
days!?! I must be reading a different List from you.
not "Wikipedia" that's doing the criticizing, since that would run afoul
of NPOV, it's just a couple of Wikipedians. So the real question is
"should some Wikipedians occasionally criticize other sites?"
And I am speaking to that "couple (?) of Wikipedians" when I say we should
spend our time and energy focusing on growing and improving our own site.
Anything else in minor league.
My position is, why not? Seems like a reasonable human activity.
The question is not whether it is "reasonable", but whether it is
Sometimes criticism is valuable, and sometimes it is
And, sometimes, it is just childish.
we've got a list somewhere on Wikipedia itself (in the Wikipedia
namespace mind you) where we keep a big list of errors Britannica has
made that Wikipedia has corrected.
An amateur waste of space.