[Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

[Nathan]

On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 3:59 AM, Peter Damian
<peter.damian at btinternet.com>wrote:

> To Notbod's long note.
>
> To say Wikipedia's coverage is 'frighteningly large' is not the same as
> saying its coverage is 'even'.
>
> On the list here
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Core_topics_-_1,000
> I have looked at Philosophy and nearly all the 11 articles there are
> horrifyingly bad.  What sort of encyclopedia has no decent entry on
> Philosophy?  Even the article [[Philosophy]] is a disaster.  I have already
> noted the problem about [[Existence]].  On Religion, there is still no
> decent article on Theology.  Science mathematics and technology are
> probably
> OK, as I have already noted (the problem is with the humanities).
>  [[Logic]]
> is a disaster and I have long been planning (with Charles Stewart) a
> rewrite.
>
> "There will always be more television programmes, long playing records,
> popular beat combos and innovative sex toys than there will be Einsteins,
> paradigm shifting scientific discoveries and philosophical enquiries." - of
> course but don't confuse that point with the question of which of these
> subjects should be included in an encyclopedia.  An encyclopedia should
> have
> a bias towards what is enduring.  What subjects will interest readers of
> the
> encyclopedia in 100 years time?  I am not saying to ignore the trivial and
> ephemeral, but rather to give to emphasise what is truly enduring and
> notable from the POV of posterity.
>
> But thanks at least for addressing the subject of this thread and not
> subjecting me to a tirade of abuse  :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter
>
>
>
What would you suggest the Wikimedia Foundation do to address the coverage
problem in the humanities? Employ academic experts to add content? Delete
ephemera to improve the balance of topics?