Stan Shebs wrote:
I have yet to see anybody seek to remove it because it's "too detailed for a general audience". So why is it imperative to have a new wiki to solve a hypothetical problem?
This is not primarily about removing content that is "too detailed for a general audience".
Look at our article [[Shark]]. It is a delightful article, but it contains both more and less than the envisioned species reference work aimed at professional biologists. We include information about the history of the word, how to survive a shark attack, shark fishing, sharks in mythology, etc. This is all excellent. But it is not the same thing as the totally different type of reference work that is envisioned.
Not every reference work is an encyclopedia. Other types of reference works will likely include, according to the specific needs of their users, both more and less information of various kinds. It's just different.
--Jimbo