Just think, in a few years we can set up the site to construct drafts for the site that constructs drafts for Wikipedia.
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Samuel Klein <meta...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Marc A. Pelletier <m...@uberbox.org> > wrote: > > There's nothing that prevents a subject from having an article in both > > namespaces. One can be seen as the complement of the other; mainspace > would > > become more encyclopedic and there would be a neat space where the more > > recent coverage can be found for further information. > > > > It'd only be a matter of educating editors and readers; the mainspace is > the > > most reliable and seriously sourced "base" of articles, at the cost of > being > > possibly a bit dated or drier. The space "below the fold" is more > timely, > > and possibly more detailed at the cost of being possibly less reliable. > > This is a good idea, and you can take it further, as suggested in the > past: we need a space in which one can draft verifiable articles > about any topic, without arguments about notability. > > Just as Wikipedia was a 'simple, unreliable scratch space' to let > everyone draft articles for nupedia, we need the same sort of space to > let everyone draft articles for [what we currently think of as] > wikipedia. > > SJ > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l