[WikiEN-l] "Good authors"

Sun Jun 25 22:32:23 UTC 2006

As much as "love in knowledge" is true, "anyone can edit" distinguishes us from other
knowledge--based projects, such as Encyclopaedia Britannica.  The slogan is terribly catchy, and
we still have readers unaware of the fact that they can edit.

If I had to give Wikimedia projects a new, more accurate slogan, it would be "organizing knowledge
by open editing".  Perhaps the Foundation proper should adopt "for people that love sharing
knowledge"?

-George
[[User:GChriss]]

<quote who="Erik Moeller">
> On 6/25/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>> How about "New editors always welcome!" - then, the assumption is that
>> we will give *anyone* a *chance* (as opposed to implying that we will
>> let anyone edit, no matter how destructive they are).
>
> I agree in principle that the slogan "the free encyclopedia that
> anyone can edit" is overly simplistic. It reminds me of the famous
> saying, "I would never want to belong to any club that would have
> someone like me for a member." It's more of a technical definition
> than one of principles and goals -- and can easily be confused with
> the latter.
>
> I believe that we need to highlight the mission of providing a great,
> free encyclopedia, along with the core principle _how_ we want to
> accomplish it. And the single most important principle I can think of
> here is not "anyone can edit". It's not even NPOV or any other policy.
> It's "WikiLove" -- of which our commitment to openness is only an
> expression. We share a love of knowledge, and we treat everyone who
> shares the same love with respect and goodwill. (That's the idea, at
> least.)
>
> If I wanted a three word slogan for Wikipedia, it would be something
> like "Love in Knowledge": emphasizing the core principle of WikiLove
> as well as the overarching goal to collect the sum of all human
> knowledge. Come to think of it, "Love in Knowledge" might be a nice
> slogan for the Wikimedia Foundation. Or is it too kitschy?
>
>> We're not elitist at all. The tone of most of our articles is very
>> folksy and approachable
>
> I'm not sure about "folksy," but of course an encyclopedia should be
> approachable. My idea of the perfect Wikipedia article is one which
> presupposes very little, and allows me to zoom into any level of
> detail which I require (following links and references to primary and
> secondary sources if Wikipedia itself is exhausted). Naturally, by
> "presupposing little", I don't mean that every concept needs to be
> explained in every article: that's what links are for.
>
> "Elitism of results", as Jimmy put it, doesn't mean to me that we
> already believe that we've created the best encyclopedia in history.
> It only means that we believe that we should, and more importantly,
> that we can. And I think that these beliefs are firmly rooted in
> Wikipedia's culture.
>
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>