Charles Matthews wrote: > Yes it is sui generis, but WP:NOT is part of that, not an add-on. I'm > somewhat concerned that a reliance on "reader survey" will indeed tend > to blur all tried-and-tested criteria for inclusion, for the sake of > other stuff that is not too useful (e.g. "I wish you'd include more > movie rumors because I really like to read about them"). Downmarket beckons. > Not sure why down-market has to beckon. We're committed to sourcing to the point I can't see a reader survey overturning that, in fact I would expect a reader survey to call for even better sourcing. Therefore, I can't really see how we could include unsourced movie rumors. Of course, I should imagine we'd all also agree that facts about upcoming movies are an area open to debate, but I'm not sure we should prejudge that debate by casting anything as a down-market move. To the point that I'd like a cite on why that would be a down-market move. I'm not suggesting Wikipedia be all things to all people, although I'd like us to make a better stab than we currently are, but I've always thought Wikipedia was a broad church, and I've always thought it was widely assumed on Wikipedia that we look to the middle-ground. Now I suppose if you see us on a high-ground, then yes, we would be shifting down-market, but realistically any encyclopedia is going to be aimed lower than the high ground, because an encyclopedia is a tertiary source, rather than a secondary source. The high ground is held by academia, something we aren't looking to replicate because of the policy on original research. I think utility is also in the eye of the beholder. Depending on which industry you work in, the utility of articles on entertainment and those on higher maths are subjective qualities. And surely blurring our still in beta stage inclusion guidance is a good idea, because life does not tend to happen in an absolute manner. The lack of adaptability in the minds of some of our contributors can sometimes harm us. I've never worked out a way of promoting the idea of an open mind and a case by case approach. I can't help but feel an encyclopedia built by the masses through consensus editing might help rather than hinder that goal. If that means moving to meet the audience, so be it. I believe it worked for Mohammed.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
