On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
From: "The
Cunctator" <cunctator(a)gmail.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:32:21 -0500
I for one think it's pathetic that Wikipedia is giving up on the mission of
being a complete encyclopedia because there exist specialty sites on
particular areas of knowledge.
I disagree. Wikipedia can't be all things to all people, and I think it's
silly to try. Wikipedia should consider itself one of a community of wikis,
specifically, the encyclopedic one, with academic standards. Why not allow
for there to be multiple sources of information, and let the different ones
specialize in different things and get good at what they do?
Well, the biggest problem with that is that the other sources
invariably don't hold themselves to as high a standard as Wikipedia.
Is the content free? Is it written from a neutral point of view? Is
it verifiable? Is the project controlled by a non-profit charity?
Are there ads plastered all over the place?
Wikipedia can't be all things to all people, but it should strive to
be a complete encyclopedia.
Anthony