Wikipedia has several problems: its treatment is woefully incomplete
for some important subjects and overly detailed on trivial subjects.
Its strongest point is the ability to cover a topic using several
different articles, the Shakespeare project being a good example,
although some article are just stubs waiting for some one to adopt
them.
TR
In my experience the Evil Interwebs cause attention deficit
Tourette's, and since I'm not going to give up my computer and quit
wasting my time I figure I might as well contribute and learn
something by doing so. In a way it reminds me of the old days at hlas,
when I would read three books to make a minuscule point and spend
hours researching to prove my opponent wrong. Plus you meet some damn
interesting and smart people.
Since original research is not permitted, the portrait in question in
your example could be successfully taken down, but you're right in
that a lot of time is wasted on agenda-driven edit warriors and the
way Wikipedia is set up favours persistence over expertise. I foresee
some kind of changes being made, especially in the more contentious
articles such as the Israel-Palestine articles and others.
TR
TR
TR
Bob, I have given your idea the fair consideration it deserves, and my
dramatised reaction is that ideas are a dime a dozen.
> Furthermore, Amazon has a way of personalizing the ads it sends a
> person. Why couldn't something along those lines be put together to
> give someone a personalized selection of entries EVENTUALLY? This
> would take work, but I suspect would not be anywhere near as difficult
> as making the things you list.
Thinking up criticisms of what exists is easy, so easy that the world
is full of people who won't help make anything better for the reason
that it's not perfect. If critics were farmers, we'd all starve
waiting around for the perfect time to plant the perfect seed to grow
the perfect food. Thank God there's no chance of that, with them being
too busy jeering from the sidelines about how stupid things are.
TR
>
> --Bob
I see nothing at all off-topic on this thread. The topic is "Wikipedia
and Shakespeare", and it began with my attempted recruitment of
Ardenites to edit Wikipedia Shakespeare articles, so any discussion
about why one should or should not do so are certainly on-topic, IMO.
Your former thread "To Make Up For Art's No longer Posting Much Here "
was much more off-topic, not because of the subject matter (poetry),
but because Art has never posted here. As long as something pertains
to Shakespeare, theatre, writing, etc., there's no reason to be a
tight-ass about it. Religion and politics, though--unless they pertain
to Shakespeare and his times--that's another matter.
TR
>
> --Bob