Jimbo wrote:
[...]
Therefore, I eagerly conclude that this whole issue is a dead issue, and that we need not consider it much further, if at all.
[...]
I would not easily give up this idea. What one may consider (now or in future) is to promote a more source-based (bibliography-based) wiki article policy as you have eg in Brittanica or major German encys. I know it well for www.ericweisstein.com -(Wolfram research) for mathematics and some other. In general, I would highly appreciate to see more references in the articles... This could have the consequence that users reading a WP article directly order a referenced book via WP (I would certainly do).
Another proposal is, that there could be a weekly book list with recent releases by topic. This (together with references) in turn could lead to higher sales revenue. This, however, relies on accurate article writing (and more accurate referencing) which seems not possible to me without editor responsibilities ... and there the circle is. This way, every move is part of the WP strategy. If you consider the amazon.com issue to be dead then this is in my opinion not a good sign of how the WP strategy is being proceeded.
If you argue with Wikibooks etc. I must concede that I am not a friend of these particularisation. The strength of the Wiki environment is to have ONE document and get the whole world linked to it. The "stem cell", I think, should be the WP article.
Mark
-- _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l