[Foundation-l] Is popularity a good thing for us?

[Andrew Whitworth]

On Dec 17, 2007 6:25 AM, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> There are philosophical reasons to exclude news material from Wikipedia, but
> doing so is clearly detrimental to Wikipedia. Wikinews does not have the
> exposure that Wikipedia has. It will not get people searching for
> newsupdates as it happens on Wikipedia. Wikinews has policies that are
> unknown and unfamiliar to Wikipedians.  In a perfect world the news would be
> in Wikinews, animals and plants in Wikispecies ... but that is not the
> reality of things in reality you find them in Wikipedia as well.

This is precisely the aspect of Wikipedia that is most infuriating to
members of the sister projects. The unwillingness to "share", the
refusal to help the sister projects, the arrogance to think that
somehow you can just do it all without having to respect boundaries.
That somehow directing "breaking news" traffic to wikinews would hurt
Wikipedia is nonsensical. If you allow projects to focus on their
specialties, you create a series of projects that are definitive
examples of their particular niche (encyclopedia, news agency, etc).
The name recognition of all projects increase because the purpose of
each becomes more well defined. In the end, being known as a "great
encyclopedia" is more important then being known as an "adequate
information pile".

Admitting that Wikipedia's specialty is in being an encyclopedia (and
not a news agency, species repository, book library, etc) is a
milestone in growth, stability, and maturity that many people (myself
included) are anxiously waiting for Wikipedia to pass. The "We can do
whatever we want because we are Wikipedia and we aren't like
traditional encyclopedias" crap is an admission that you have no
focus, no specialty, and no understanding of your own core
competencies.

--Andrew Whitworth