[WikiEN-l] a valid criticism

[Fastfission]

On 10/7/05, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> > I would expect more people to read [[Brutalist architecture]] than
> [[Architecture]]....
>
> You have surprising expectations.

No, it's just that there are a number of ways of using Wikipedia. Some
people use it like an a general reference, while many others use it
for information about very specific topics.

I'd likely never read an article on [[Physics]] -- I have a feeling I
already know what it says. But I would definitely read up on [[General
Relativity]] or [[Quantum electrodynamics]] when my desire for that
knowledge comes up.

It's just a different way of approaching things, that's all, but I
think they are both perfectly valid modes of using the encyclopedia. I
think, however, that we should concentrate on getting those "general"
articles up to par before worrying about the more specific ones.
Nobody will ever write an article saying, "Ha ha, Wikipedia's article
on [[Stratovolcano]] is really incomplete!" because a large percentage
of the audience isn't going to know what a Stratovolcano is anyway.
But if we screw up on articles like [[Volcano]] -- something everybody
feels they know something about -- then we're a prime target. (If one
is worried about being a prime target, of course. I'm actually not
that concerned about it.)


FF