Ist es so oder ist es nicht so? Ist es erlaubt, nur so als Denkansatz, vollkommen hypothetisch, mal darüber nachzudenken, ob das Blockwart-Gehabe, das andere kontrollieren und sich über sie erheben will, ein Wesenszug der Deutschen ist? Lang nach damals... "Diesen Streit gibt es nur in Deutschland ...". Das immerhin.
Die Wikipedia ist aktueller als übliche Lexika und weiß mehr über alltägliche Stichworte als die traditionelle Konkurrenz. Mehrere Untersuchungen haben ergeben, dass die Wikipedia nicht mehr Fehler enthält als andere Lexika. | Die deutsche Wikipedia allerdings wird seit Monaten beherrscht von einem Streit zwischen "Inklusionisten" und "Exklusionisten": Die einen wollen möglichst alle Artikel veröffentlichen und auch abseitigen Themen einen Platz zu geben. Die anderen verlangen strenge und sehr umstrittene Nachweise, dass ein Thema relevant ist. Diesen Streit gibt es nur in Deutschland und viele glauben, er könnte die deutsche Wikipedia austrocknen lassen.
"Inklusionisten" versus "Exklusionisten". Streit bei der deutschen Wikipedia. Von Philip Banse. Deutschland Radio, Kultur. Beitrag vom 14.01.2011.
--
Nachtrag: Schnelle Reaktion von einem WP-Aktivisten. Sehr bedenkenswert vor allem der Hinweis darauf:
"German restrictions in 2009
The judgment that the German Wikipedia has "done so well" is a matter of opinion. There are many German articles that contain accurate facts, as reviewed for article-verification status. However, the German Wikipedia is extremely hollow and limited in its content, as easily seen by the rejection, during 2009, of many translated articles from English Wikipedia. Mainstream simple articles, such as lists of American landmarks, were rejected when just a few words were translated into awkward German phrases. What should have involved a simple article transfer, as needing just a few days of translation, became delayed by months, as people complained that the wording of a quickly translated article was "not perfect" and that "having no article would have been better" than to bother them with translations of major articles viewed hundreds of times per week. In that sense, the German Wikipedia is a failure in terms of scope, due to rejecting translated articles that are only 99% grammatically correct. That is a failure of being too restrictive, which caused even many simple articles to be rejected from German Wikipedia."
Und auch diese Anmerkungen zur Oligarchie sind sehr lesenswert.
--
Nachtrag: Schnelle Reaktion von einem WP-Aktivisten. Sehr bedenkenswert vor allem der Hinweis darauf:
"German restrictions in 2009
The judgment that the German Wikipedia has "done so well" is a matter of opinion. There are many German articles that contain accurate facts, as reviewed for article-verification status. However, the German Wikipedia is extremely hollow and limited in its content, as easily seen by the rejection, during 2009, of many translated articles from English Wikipedia. Mainstream simple articles, such as lists of American landmarks, were rejected when just a few words were translated into awkward German phrases. What should have involved a simple article transfer, as needing just a few days of translation, became delayed by months, as people complained that the wording of a quickly translated article was "not perfect" and that "having no article would have been better" than to bother them with translations of major articles viewed hundreds of times per week. In that sense, the German Wikipedia is a failure in terms of scope, due to rejecting translated articles that are only 99% grammatically correct. That is a failure of being too restrictive, which caused even many simple articles to be rejected from German Wikipedia."
Und auch diese Anmerkungen zur Oligarchie sind sehr lesenswert.
