And actually he is perfectly right: That *is* our
biggest problem. Not the
copying, not errors, not the missing editors, not the enthusiasts he
mentions. But the "superfluous trivia". Our problem is noise, in en: even
more as in de:. The noise repells qualified authors and editors. This is the
reason why the article quality does not increase the way that should be
expected given the idea behind wikipedia and the popularity and it already
has.
As an encyclopaedia, we should reduce noise. Instead we are creating noise by
accepting articles on any subject. For me - opposing that
noise-accepting-policy since one and a half years now - that outsiders
statement is very interesting.
Can you give a definition of "noise" vs. "non-noise" topics that does
not
ultimately boil down to arbitrarily including some while excluding others?
--
10:16PM up 120 days, 7:31, 1 user, load averages: 0.22, 0.31, 0.25
Every non-empty totally disconnected perfect compact metric space is
homeomorphic to the Cantor set.