I'm not ready to give up on Wikipedia (as someone who has worked in reference publishing for years, I love the idea of Wikipedia), but this "tone" comment is a great example of what I've been saying for a while: online reference's ontogeny doesn't have to, and should not, recapitulate print reference's phylogeny.
What's important is that Wikipedia fulfill the FUNCTION of a reference work, not that it LOOK like a reference work. But a lot of people seem to want it to be just a reference-shaped object, because that's what they're comfortable with. It's the whole "to be rather than to seem" problem.
How do we fix this? I'm not sure. It's worth thinking about & trying, though.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2007 | 2 |
Total: 2 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Erin:
Show all comments by Erin.