[Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

[WJhonson at aol.com]

Your position is flawed.  What is "enduring" is not the same as what will 
be "interesting" to future generations.  Enduring to me means, "yet 
existing".  Some sex toys will be yet existing in 100 years, but I'm sure they will 
all be "interesting" especially to researchers of the use of sex toys which 
no longer exist.

And that is the very issue.  We need to cover items of historical interest, 
not just present.  And in doing that, we must cover all items of present 
interest because we cannot *presume* to discern what in the future may be of 
interest.

The most frustrating thing in genealogy, and biography are those exact 
points that persons of that day past, thought wouldnt' be of interest and on 
which today major points of contention are yet turning.  We should cover 
whatever our authors *wish* to cover provided it is written in encyclopedic 
language and is balanced in what is presented, not in what *ought* to be 
presented.  That is covered by SOFIXIT.

We don't have experts in every field, it's doubtful we ever will.  We 
shouldn't denigrate those articles in fields x y and z simply because no expert 
in field a b or c is present.



In a message dated 9/18/2010 12:59:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
peter.damian at btinternet.com writes:


> "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.