Talk:DrinkOrDie: Difference between revisions
Larry_Sanger (talk) No edit summary |
Larry_Sanger (talk) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
:Actually, I have my doubts about that, which points up a problem we need to think about more than we have so far: if you lose interest in this breaking news story, your article might become completely inaccurate, quickly. That's the main reason I think it's not such a good idea to make encyclopedia articles out of current news |
:Actually, I have my doubts about that, which points up a problem we need to think about more than we have so far: if you lose interest in this breaking news story, your article might become completely inaccurate, quickly. That's the main reason I think it's not such a good idea to make encyclopedia articles out of current news stories, and why it is better that we focus on giving background to news stories. We aren't set up to do news stories! The 9/11 stuff was a notable exception to all this, I think. (I say "I think," because this is just my ''opinion." So don't get your panties in a bunch.) Any news story can change in subtle (and not so subtle) and important ways daily, and I think it not only possible but ''likely'' that, as long as we continue writing such articles, we won't keep up with all the changes. So, what was once a good summary of the current situation (and therefore might serve both as an encyclopedia article and as a news article) becomes a hopelessly dated "old news" article. |
||
Revision as of 16:53, 12 December 2001
Three questions (bear in mind, they are just questions for you to think about):
- Is this properly an encyclopedia article or a news article? Should we think that a developing news article is essentially the same as an encyclopedia article?
- Does this whole issue really deserve treatment in Wikipedia?
- What is the purpose of the "quotations" section?
The questions might be more neutrally phrased as:
- Um, this is a talk page. I don't have to be neutral.
- Is this written an encyclopedia article or a news article? What are the differences between developing news article and an encyclopedia article?
- What is appropriate content in Wikipedia?
- What is the purpose of the "quotations" section?
See Appropriate content and plump waterfowl for a general response to all the questions, especially the first and second.
In this case, an entry on an organization which is the subject of multimillion-dollar criminal investigation is certainly appropriate.
- Are all multi-million dollar investigations worthy of Wikipedia articles? The point is, since it's breaking news, we lack the perspective of history.
Over time the entry will be edited to emphasize what the informed consensus considers important and accurate, and deemphasize what the consensus considers unimportant, unclear, and inaccurate.
- Actually, I have my doubts about that, which points up a problem we need to think about more than we have so far: if you lose interest in this breaking news story, your article might become completely inaccurate, quickly. That's the main reason I think it's not such a good idea to make encyclopedia articles out of current news stories, and why it is better that we focus on giving background to news stories. We aren't set up to do news stories! The 9/11 stuff was a notable exception to all this, I think. (I say "I think," because this is just my opinion." So don't get your panties in a bunch.) Any news story can change in subtle (and not so subtle) and important ways daily, and I think it not only possible but likely that, as long as we continue writing such articles, we won't keep up with all the changes. So, what was once a good summary of the current situation (and therefore might serve both as an encyclopedia article and as a news article) becomes a hopelessly dated "old news" article.
What is the purpose of the "quotations" section?
This section is not perfectly handled right now, but serves as "meat" for further work. Simply adding such meat should be discouraged (noone wants to eat raw meat, unless it's sliced thinly and very expensive), but not forbidden, because not everyone has the time or skill to be a Michelin chef, but if they just bagged a plump waterfowl, they should be encouraged to bring it into the kitchen.
- Fair enough. But it seemed to me the quotes were sharpening an axe you have to grind. --LMS
--TheCunctator
Larry,
I definitely think this is encyclopedia material, much more so than the names of the different creatures on Middle Earth. The warez/cracker scene is an interesting one, and I hope that over time we get more information about it. This entry is not only relevant because of the recent news, I would have liked to see an entry about DrinkOrDie before that. -- Eloq.
I totally agree that we need encyclopedia articles about the warez/cracker scene, and about DrinkOrDie! My main questions have to do with the wisdom of trying to maintain a running news article about DrinkOrDie. There's a fine line to be walked between having "the latest" about a given topic and simply making an article up-to-date, but not with all the latest (and extremely changeable, not to mention unreliable) details you find in news articles. --LMS
I think it's encyclopedia material; and I'll wager that more people in the United States can tell you who DrinkOrDie are than can tell you anything about Dziga Vertov, or would care to hear about him. I do agree that we don't want Wikipedia to become an encyclopedia of pop culture, but that's just additional incentive for us to work on more universally accepted encyclopedia topics. I think, anyway. But then I haven't had sleep in oh, several days. I lay these words at the altar of the god Yerba Mate. <g> The article does need a little work, though. So it fits in that regard. :-) --KQ
DrinkOrDie is, I agree, encyclopedia material. :-) If you'll look at my questions, they concerned about the news coverage the current article offers. --LMS