[WikiEN-l] Re: Totally unscientific investigation...
Phil Boswell
phil.boswell at gmail.com
Tue Nov 15 16:46:03 UTC 2005
"Matt Brown" <morven at gmail.com> wrote in
message news:42f90dc00511150452r4a9f2cb5o9d8b0b9a32167aa at mail.gmail.com...
> Yes, I'm an eventualist. From my point of view, Wikipedia has a long,
> long way to go, and that's not a bad thing. It's that the sum total
> of useful human knowledge is so vast. There are many subject areas
> that Wikipedia's coverage is scant or wholly lacking. Yet, at the
> same time, there are articles on Wikipedia that are better than ANY
> other online resource. I am sure there are some that are better than
> ANY published article, on or offline. Isn't that something to feel
> good about?
Would it be really awful if, for something of actual interest to a
reasonable number of people, Wikipedia provided the ONLY consolidated
resource for information?
We have the awesome ability to pull together threads of information to
create a tapestry of knowledge which could inform and delight. We have the
capacity to create the biggest darn tapestry of this kind ever.
Instead entirely too many people are nitpicking about whether we're using
the correct gauge of thread, and whether we're allowed to weave in this
particular manner, making a round of Mornington Crescent sound positively
staid and reasonable.
Some are even burning little holes in it because they don't like some of the
stitches, bringing to mind the "Family Tree of the House of Black" from
Harry Potter.
May the motto of Wikipedia never become "toujours pur"...
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
More information about the WikiEN-l
mailing list