QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 24th June 2009, 3:03pm)
QUOTE(Casliber @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 11:40pm)
I am also not necessarily convinced that is a problem as the primary objective is still writing an encyclopedia.
I remain to be convinced of that. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia (at least not one that any sensible person would be proud of), nor is it (as far as I can tell) getting any closer to being one. Its policies have been trending away from, not toward, positions that I would think likely to be conducive to the production of encyclopedic content, especially with the extremely strong (but very inconsistently enforced) proscription against editorial synthesis, which is, for all intents and purposes, the gravamen of the encyclopedia form.
I, personally, believe this is because of the general intellectual immaturity of the bulk of Wikipedia's editors (not to mention its Illustrious Leader), combined (of course) with the vested interests engaged in pitched battle. The former does not understand intellectual competence and so has no cause to value it, and the latter rightfully sees it as a threat, and these two forces combined to stamp out competence whenever they blunder across it.
'editorial synthesis'? - you mean Original Research? There is a huge amount of synthesis out there to inline reference just about everything. And if not, one has to wonder why no-one else has connected the dots before. I presume this is what you mean?
Re paragraph two, yes there are trouble spots, and yes there are vested interests, but these trouble areas take up alot of observation space at WR and blogs etc. Stuff which fares well is pretty boring to write about - lack of teh dramaz. (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)
Pray tell me which intellectual competence you've seen stamped out?
Cas
User:Giano/The_future, Giano shows leadership
