Stan Shebs wrote:
I have yet to see anybody seek to remove it because
"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
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