David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/2/9 Carcharoth
<carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com>om>:
>
>> To pick another example. The reference desks (which I think are
>> great) are technically a bit divorced from the encyclopedia
>> building, but I think are a legitimate side operation, especially
>> when article do (sometimes) get improved as a result. It's also
>> legitimate because some people prefer to ask humans a question and
>> have them look it up, rather than look things up themselves. The
>> side effect is quite a lot of chatter around the questions and
>> answers.
>
>
> It's definitely right in line with the mission. Also a chance for us
> to show off our erudition.
>
> (e.g. going down the pub, there's three Wikipedians at the table
> talking obscure military history they've picked up in the course of
> just hanging around and a fourth person looking slightly boggled.)
I tend to agree; there are occasions where two editors can engage
constructively in an academic discourse which would probably not attract
much interest on an article's talk page. Far better that they sort it out
between themselves, and if that happens to be on-Wiki, dissenting editors
can be directed to such a subpage for further discussion; with the proviso
that such discussions be flagged on article talk pages, if they are of
sufficient moment, and potential contributors be made aware that those
discussions are ongoing.
Personally, I'm usually the fourth person, totally boggled as to why people
care about "Celebrity Come Dancing" in the slightest, as an unconstructive
intersection of two concepts lacking in long-term cultural significance, but
then, perhaps that's why I've become more interested in medieval Wiltshire
monasteries of late. P.Ss, if you know of anyone who would, er, pay me money
for doing this, please let me know, as I do miss being able to afford
cheese. And meat.
Regards