The reason why editors stagnate is more like this:
Wikipedia will die because noone real can contribute. Write a new article and it will be shot down. Write an article about important programming languages and it will be killed with some strange acronym.
Exception: a several thousand word article about what Homer did eat in one 8 year old Simpson episode will stay.
His “on the list” idea is totally Wikipedia directorate style and a.) will be implemented b.) will accelerate stagnation
Wikipedia will stay relevant - and I still use it - for some trivia I want to know, it's usually sufficient complete there. But it creates a mirror universe that reflects the thoughts of all editors, not of the online community.
Wikipedia will die because noone real can contribute. Write a new article and it will be shot down. Write an article about important programming languages and it will be killed with some strange acronym.
Exception: a several thousand word article about what Homer did eat in one 8 year old Simpson episode will stay.
"Programming languages are being deleted from Wikipedia " http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2215168
His “on the list” idea is totally Wikipedia directorate style and a.) will be implemented b.) will accelerate stagnation
Wikipedia will stay relevant - and I still use it - for some trivia I want to know, it's usually sufficient complete there. But it creates a mirror universe that reflects the thoughts of all editors, not of the online community.