On 2/27/07, T P <t0m0p0(a)gmail.com> wrote: So you are saying that if a field is completely forgotten or outmoded, even if we have the secondary sources to back us up and our encyclopaedia is not on paper, we should not be including articles on that field? I'd like some concrete examples - but then again, these are all hypotheticals since nobody's ever written an encyclopaedia and published it in realtime. Then again, could you perhaps point to some topics fifteen years old which you think would not be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia today, but would have been included in Wikipedia by experts at the peak of the topics' fame? Johnleemk

On 2/27/07, T P <t0m0p0(a)gmail.com> wrote: Well, I believe such incidents would be included in an encyclopaedia of Michael Richards or Britney Spears-related things. And certainly, biographies written about them in the future would mention the incidents. I don't think they make a good example, though, because any articles about such incidents would almost certainly be merged into another relevant article - typically the main article on the celebrity in question - because there's simply not much you can say about them. And as for the latest Paris fashions, we have an article for every year of the Oscars - why not an article for every year of a Paris fashion show, as long as the sources are there? Also, remember the great thing about Wikipedia is that information can both be put in and taken out at the click of a mouse. If (let's say) this information some day truly becomes an embarassment to WP, we can delete it - and at the same time, the articles would have served their purpose throughout their lifetime, by being a resource for the readers of an era where the information was considered relevant and appropriate for an encyclopaedia or other general reference tertiary source. Johnleemk

John Lee wrote: Absolutely. I personally make a point of being fashion unconscious, but I know that there are others that are interested in such things. An article or articles that chronical these annual changes could serve very well in helping to understand how the fashion industry works. How do they manage in their marketting strategies to convince people to pay outrageous prices for new clothes when the old ones are still perfectly wearable. Imagine an open source fashion industry! Anybody could have original designer clothing by building drawings on a web site. The drawings are interpreted by someone who can sew, and the finished product is sent to you within a few days. :-) Ec

On 2/27/07, T P <t0m0p0(a)gmail.com> wrote: Yes. It's good that you're starting to admit that your desired conception of WIkipedia differs from what it actually is.

On 2/27/07, T P <t0m0p0(a)gmail.com> wrote: Sure. I, for one, am not ashamed of Wikipedia's extensive depth on current events. I would also have no qualms about deleting such an article 5 years from now. Steve

On 2/27/07, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote: That's a valid point. I am concerned, however, that people will write stuff in the heat of the moment and not go back and revise with the benefit of hindsight. Adam

On 27/02/07, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote: A reliable way of finding out articles which were "contemporary" two years ago and coming back to clean, discard or polish them as appropriate would be usefu;. Any ideas? -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Delirium wrote: When speaking of original research we always need to remember why such a rule arose: to prevent the more loony ideas from having a podium. Articles on current events need to be layered. For some of the of the basic information such as who invaded, and on what date newspaper reports are as reliable as anything. People are anxious to find out more about these things as they happen, and government sources and big news media often leave the impression that they are biased. If we put up early information that is questionable it's easier for us to admit we were wrong and make the necessary corrections than it is for governments and big media. Our coverage of events like the London subway bombing or the Indian Ocean tsunami managed to keep on top of events better that the standard news outlets. This offered a degree of accountability that was not generally available elsewhere. Other aspects develop more slowly, like the stranger conspiracy theories about the 9/11 events. If those theories are out there they need to be taken into account and a neutral approach to such things requires a fair representation of both sides of the story. Media accountability could become a big issue. The chasm between media investment interests and government spin on one hand, and free-for-all speculation on the other requires some kind of neutrality somewhere in the middle. NPOV provides a framework for accountability. It is not inimical to original research as long as there is ample room to correct the errors in that are inevitable in original research. Put in other terms reliability is not as important as accountability. Ec