[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

[Guy Chapman aka JzG]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:49:52 -0500, you wrote:

>>I don't see it being banished, I see Jimbo saying let's all walk away
>>and come back if anyone still cares in a year.  What's the rush?  My
>>view is that no topic should be added until at least a year after it
>>happens, in order to allow formation of a proper perspective, there is
>>no rush to scoop anyone. Wikinews is that way ----->

>No articles on any topic for a year until it happens?  Don't you think 
>that's going a bit far?

Not a firm policy, just a rule of thumb.  How many times have you seen
the interpretation of current events change as fuller information
becomes available?

>Here's some articles that'd have to be deleted, just scanning through 
>Current Events
>* [[European Institute of Technology]] -- was just proposed this week; 
>hasn't even opened

So no article required.  It's a footnote in the article on the
European Commission until it at least exists.

>* [[Grbavica (film)]] -- just released this month

But has been over a year in the conception and making; not really a
current event (we are documenting the film, not the release event).

>* [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]] -- the cartoons were 
>first published 5 months ago, and just got famous a month or so ago

Yep.  Remember how it came out that the most offensive ones had never
been published by the paper?

>* [[2006 Southern Leyte mudslide]] -- happened five days ago

Indeed.  No details of root cause yet, death toll unknown, news still
arriving of what has been going on on the ground.  Wikinews is
thataway ---->

>I shouldn't think there's anything so inherently wrong with an 
>encyclopedia having up-to-date coverage to merit such a rule.

It's not about a problem with being up-to-date, it's about lacking the
perspective which time provides.
Guy (JzG)
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG