http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...etion/Veropedia

This could get velllly interesting eventually.

Is anyone even going to use Veropedia anyway? It seems like another site that's more for the contributors than the readers. It is by definition pretty useless as an encyclopedia 'cause it's always going to have huge gaps in its coverage. The thing about WP is that even if an article is a mess, you can usually get a vague idea out of it [like a basic definition of what you're looking up, at the very least]. Most of the veropedia site seems to be links to Wikipedia anyway. I don't get it?



So what's the point if they're just going to link to the normal WP article where a Veropedia one doesn't exist? Why not just... browse Wikipedia? Veropedia has even less use than a mirror.

It seems the article is going to be kept. A lot of WP admins are using Veropedia now, and they all love it (probably 'cause they can pretend like they belong to a serious project even though it's a waste of time) so they're all going to vote keep. They're not biased or anything, no sirree...

I disagree...totally.

VP could become an improved version of "an encyclopedia in the making."

It is a brilliant idea and it could also (eventually) merge into a much larger organization.

Because it will take ALL content from WP, for free, WP becomes the incubator of free knowledge and VP becomes the one site that will not be used by vandals to default to the mediocre.

I see a Citizendium / VP merger?

LOL!

It relies on WP first producing a good article, then someone coming along and finding it, and then people caring enough to keep updating the Veropedia article when the WP article is improved. And for all that effort they could just as easily link you to the Wikipedia article anyway. Everything on Veropedia is going to be found on WP, except that on Veropedia articles are going to be outdated [think: BLPs, etc] and given a veneer of reliability [they're still going to be written by the same idiots].

Veropedia haven't even uploaded all the FAs yet.

Beyond question it is not notable in the real world. However, it is surely WP:Notable due to the disconnect between WP and reality!

It is that age old question. Should it be kept because it is notable in reference to Wikipedia, or only because it is notable to the real world?

Remember that their ex lawyer Danny had his own entry on Wikipedia while he was their lawyer, and when he quit his entry got deleted.

I am not convinced that Angela Beesley is actually notable either, but she is notable to Wikipedia.

Actually I guess I lean towards keeping things, and I don't see the harm in them having an article on Veropedia.

They're just being ornery narcissists.

See, Veropedia can't have an article on itself unless Wikipedia has an article on Veropedia first.

True for the most part, except...most good articles should not require changing more than once in a great while, albeit it happens all the time on WP by a bunch of young people with very little wisdom. They then change things just for the sake of changing; for the worse and, indeed they default to average because most of the "brains" out there are average. Ergo, most encyclopedia content should be verified and remain untouched save for annual review; changed only by scholars and people with real knowledge. If you want something that changes everyday, just call it THE NEWS.

For keeps.

Until WP changes the idea that articles should be never ending playgrounds for kids and vandals, Veropedia will look better and better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...etion/Veropedia