Jake Nelson wrote:
> I've seen a lot of dodging of the "what does it hurt?" question, the
most
> I've seen is "it DOES hurt" or
"it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia".
The
> first response isn't an answer, and begs
the question to be repeated.
As to
> the second... what do you define an
encyclopedia as? LKWR is the only
one
> I've seen outline criteria (back on
10/31), 4 of which describe
Wikipedia
excellently, and I disagree with the other 2.
My main question is that it makes Wikipedia look ridiculous, and makes
information harder to find. If I search for "Michael Jordan" and get
4,000 results consisting of every person who has ever been named
"Michael Jordan", that's *much* less useful than the current state, and
a bit laughable. Wikipedia is not a geneological database after all.
The Cunctator stated
This is a straw man argument.
That is The Cunc's usual reply. Don't make a credible case, just call your
opponent's argument a "straw man" argument. 'Nuff said. Any chance of a
more detailed argument rather than an empty cliché, Cunc?
JT
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.