Jimbo wrote:
[...]
Therefore, I eagerly conclude that this whole issue is
a dead issue,
and that we need not consider it much further, if at all.
[...]
I would not easily give up this idea. What one may consider (now or in
future) is to promote a more source-based (bibliography-based) wiki article
policy as you have eg in Brittanica or major German encys. I know it well
for
www.ericweisstein.com -(Wolfram research) for mathematics and some
other. In general, I would highly appreciate to see more references in the
articles... This could have the consequence that users reading a WP article
directly order a referenced book via WP (I would certainly do).
Another proposal is, that there could be a weekly book list with recent
releases by topic. This (together with references) in turn could lead to
higher sales revenue. This, however, relies on accurate article writing (and
more accurate referencing) which seems not possible to me without editor
responsibilities ... and there the circle is. This way, every move is part
of the WP strategy. If you consider the
amazon.com issue to be dead then
this is in my opinion not a good sign of how the WP strategy is being
proceeded.
If you argue with Wikibooks etc. I must concede that I am not a friend of
these particularisation. The strength of the Wiki environment is to have ONE
document and get the whole world linked to it. The "stem cell", I think,
should be the WP article.
Mark
--
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l