Snowspinner wrote
Which is why I didn't simply append this to
Jimbo's discussion - it is a
separate one.
Don't get me wrong - I welcome a chance to talk about content on this list.
So far I have marked my card as
-J. Wales - celeb articles can be awash with facts and factoids but not add
up to a good read at all
-D. Gerard - The Economist's style rocks
This isn't just a matter of writing style - it'
a matter of focus. As a
general encyclopedia, we need to be targetted at a general audience - that
means that, if nothing else, what the New York Times identifies as major
events in someone's life are, for our purposes, major events.
POV! Sorry, for Derrida, some of us really don't accept that he was born
again in Yale. That is, he is a European philosopher (the French WP defines
him as 'major French philosopher') and I'll take the [[Vincent Descombes]]
view over those unreliable rascals at the NYT any day.
I'm not saying those are the only ones
worth paying attention to - but then, I'd support an article on each of
Derrida's publications, so I'm not worried, in the big picture, about
crowding out the academic stuff. I don't think Cambridge and de Man
should be the main focus of the article at all. I do think they each need
their little sections, and that it would be irresponsible of us to
exclude them.
Well, I actually know some of the Cambridge non placets. Do they know from
Derrida? Actually, what they know is what they hate about deconstruction.
Which is partly disowned by Derrida himself.
Anyway, much of the problem has been caused by the article being over-long,
and not too much fun to edit. Perhaps things will improve.
Charles