Ortolan wrote:
> Nonetheless, it seems totally appropriate to solve this problem of
> incoherence and occasionally upsetting behavior (inherent in the
> nature of Wikipedia), by moving properly vetted, well-behaved,
> near-complete, shoe-and-shirt-wearing articles from Wikipedia to
> Nupedia.
I agree. There's a huge difference between "requiring proper attire" and outright racism, to expand on Tom's metaphor.
Suppose a town decides to revoke its vagrancy law and allow homeless people to wander the streets and sleep in the park. It would be perfectly permissible for it to draw the line at access to public facilities like restaurants and libraries, with, e.g., a "no shirt no shoes no service" rule. This isn't "discriminatory", because anyone with the price of a meal can still eat in the restaurant: they just can't come in with their dirty, smelly feet or show their tits. Likewise, a dress or bathing code in a library isn't necessarily discriminatory. Even bums and hobos are welcome to read there without paying.
Whether the "well-behaved" articles are moved to Nupedia, or marked in a special way, or linked from some as yet undefined 3rd sites, is not the issue. Sure, Nupedia can stay intact, Larry, no one's trying to hurt your baby :-)
We need a certification scheme that does not:
* inhibit the free flow of info into the Wikipedia
* establish a (deadly) cabal
* reduce everything to the common denominator
Surely we can think of a scheme that satisfies these requirements, as well as any others that Larry, Cunc, Toby, Elian, et al., have posed.
I won't brag about how much money I've made in software development, but I'll say this: when I've been authorized to collect and refine user requirements, it has always led to a system that knocked the users' socks off!
Ed Poor
"Writing for myself, not my company"