Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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?

--Larry Sanger

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 ourselves! 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



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.  :-) --Koyaanis Qatsi

DrinkOrDie is, I agree, encyclopedia material.  :-) If you'll look at my questions, they concerned about the news coverage the current article offers. --LMS

You mean if I look more closely. But yes, you are correct. Well I wouldn't argue that we shouldn't necessarily not have "current news" articles; the September 11 articles are wonderfully done and have also brought a lot of traffic. But it is the case that eventually untended articles will become dated. Perhaps we should create a page specifically for articles we want to have, but which will take conscientious tending (aside from the obvious contenders such as */Government?). Just an idea, I'm interested in hearing more. --Koyaanis Qatsi

"But it is the case that eventually untended articles will become dated."
Yes, but -
A lot of "news items" remain of interest ("Caesar crosses Rubicon". "Vandals dump tea in Boston Harbor". "Burglars aprehended at Watergate Hotel".) We won't have the historical perspective to judge this until, well, until we have the historical perspective. And if nobody wants to read the entry, it's probably not hurting anything.

This is a great encyclopedia article. Isn't Wikipedia for this purpose: to have better content that other encyclopedia wouldn't want to or dare to put in. The spirit of open Source projects is this type of variety that can be found nowhere else. I think these types of articles should be encouraged, just as long as we don't let it get to the point that it's just ramblings with no focus. --Jzcool


I think this article could do with a bit of word-smithing; however, it's right on the money. The form of the "also-charged" list seems a tad bland though. Additionally, a few of the links have "moved with no forwarding address", and could probably stand to be alphabetised (given that dating died about two links in to the effort). What to do to make it better... Orethrius 05:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]