QUOTE(Cedric @ Wed 5th May 2010, 10:01am)
QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Wed 5th May 2010, 7:33am)
Beautiful! But it's basically just straight history. It doesn't really have even a fraction of the info I'd like to see in the info, and has a lot of what I would consider "noise" in a document that neatly sums up Wikipedia's many and varied governance wikiscandals.
More of a chronicle, actually, and an excellent one at that. To be a true work of history, it must also contain interpretation and analysis, which seems to be what you are aiming for. Still, like all the best chronicles, it can serve as a map to get you to where you want to go. This one is replete with links to web pages that can serve as sources.
Chronicle, fine. But no, I wasn't suggesting a work of history. It's crucial to what I have in mind that it be focused on amassing evidence, not analysis. "Annotated bibliography of primary sources" would be the closest I have to it. And I'd suggest also that it be written topic-by-topic (at least, that would be the default view) rather than chronologically.
And qua chronicle, I'm not sure how good it was, because the parts that I happen to know about have a few inaccuracies. But it's not bad and it's better than many I've seen.