24:
80:
198:"abusive mods" removing it? Or is this a misconception derived from the experiences of those with extreme viewpoints who attempt to rewrite controversial articles without discussing the matter with other users? Do we really care what someone who blanks an article and writes "penis" thinks of the project anyway?
209:
Is
Knowledge (XXG) about to run out of funding and close down? Or did the accountant miss a zero off the last fiscal report? Will the Foundation discover $ 1,000,000 down the back of the sofa some time in the next four months? Or will we have to resort to running ads on Knowledge (XXG)? Would it be
201:
Are all our articles written by high-school kids with no knowledge of the subject? Is this a bad thing? Or has
Knowledge (XXG) inadvertently done something rather impressive – taken the millions of kid-hours of spare time that these people would otherwise have wasted on video games and MySpace, and
170:
does not? Is someone going to go and write that article now I've linked it? Is the overwhelming presence of popular culture and underwhelming presence of 17th-century Dutch art a poor reflection on the user demographic and an indication that we are drowning in cruft? Or is the creation of a large,
112:
Is the mere fact that it exists on the scale it does an indication of success? Does the redistributability of its content ensure that, one way or another, it can never fail? Or does the malignant outcome of a few webcomic AfDs and the decision to make things difficult for spammers mean that the
197:
Is
Knowledge (XXG) confusing to newcomers? Is it hostile to outsiders? Perplexing to those not in the "inner circle"? Do experienced editors give the impression they don't care because secretly, it's just as confusing for them? Is it impossible to add information to Knowledge (XXG) without the
147:
articles, has it already been attained? Is 6,884,914 articles too many, or too few? Is this metric a misleading one? What about the average length of the article? Average number of edits? Median number of minor edits per page move? Which is better – lies, damned lies, or statistics?
220:
Does any of this matter, in the grand scheme of things? Or does
Knowledge (XXG)'s massive user base mean that, short of drastic action, the project will find its own direction? Would it be better if, instead of writing these essays, we wrote more articles?
120:" status have any real meaning? Does the ratio of featured articles to non-featured articles actually tell us anything? Or is it about as useful as dividing a contributor's edit summary usage by the number of Portal talk edits they have? What about "
159:? Is it appropriate to cite Knowledge (XXG)? Is it appropriate to cite any encyclopedia? Is it appropriate to rely on anything in Knowledge (XXG) at all, ever? Do thousands of graduate students owe their degrees to it nevertheless?
202:
actually put it to productive use? Is the project run by abusive, power-mad adolescents? Or is this an unfair generalization from the inevitable disruptive few? Is it really worth it when editors, driven mad by content disputes,
203:
273:
248:
171:
centrally-organized, well-written, sourced, encyclopedic collection of information something we should consider an achievement, regardless of the subject matter?
268:
263:
243:
99:
258:
39:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge (XXG) contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
224:
Questions, questions, questions. Feel free to add more perplexing questions that no two people are ever going to agree on as you see fit.
40:
238:
105:
278:
253:
163:
117:
293:
144:
155:
tripled in the last three months? If I pick a random statement from a random article, will it be true, or will it be
132:
121:
167:
44:
54:
179:
32:
233:
187:
175:
178:
broken? Is it not broken? Does this have anything at all to do with the encyclopedia? Is
214:
to do so? Would the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, or would it drive everyone away?
287:
140:
136:
47:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
113:
entire project is the birthchild of Satan, as many bloggers would have us believe?
162:
Is the unevenness of
Knowledge (XXG)'s coverage unacceptable? Does it matter that
128:
an article is labelled as, provided it's encyclopedic and useful to its readers?
139:
articles are a couple of paragraphs long with no authors or references, and the
124:"? Is "good" good enough? Is it too good? At the end of the day, does it matter
156:
152:
135:-or-better" quality hopelessly unattainable? Or, given that most of the
74:
18:
274:
Knowledge (XXG):Evaluating
Knowledge (XXG) as an encyclopedia
210:
in the spirit of the project to do so? Would it be idiotic
206:? Is there a cabal? If so, does it exist? Can I be in it?
62:
249:
Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) is a work in progress
204:
threaten to climb the
Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man
186:
have anything at all to do with the encyclopedia? Is
269:
Knowledge (XXG):Why
Knowledge (XXG) is not so great
151:How reliable is Knowledge (XXG)? Has the number of
264:Knowledge (XXG):Why Knowledge (XXG) is so great
244:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) is not failing
279:meta:Conflicting Knowledge (XXG) philosophies
194:have ... well, it does, but is it a problem?
8:
259:Knowledge (XXG):What Knowledge (XXG) is not
239:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) is failing
216:How much of the money would I be getting?
103:of becoming a high-quality, đź’•? Or is it
41:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
254:Knowledge (XXG):What Knowledge (XXG) is
100:Knowledge (XXG) succeeding in its aim
7:
131:Is Knowledge (XXG)'s aim to become "
91:is going on? And why should we care?
106:failing beyond all hope of recovery
45:thoroughly vetted by the community
14:
78:
22:
16:Essay on editing Knowledge (XXG)
164:The Banker (Deal or No Deal UK)
1:
310:
52:
86:This page in a nutshell:
294:Knowledge (XXG) essays
234:Knowledge (XXG):About
168:aggregation technique
43:, as it has not been
166:has an article but
95:
94:
73:
72:
301:
118:Featured article
82:
81:
75:
65:
26:
25:
19:
309:
308:
304:
303:
302:
300:
299:
298:
284:
283:
230:
79:
69:
68:
61:
57:
49:
48:
23:
17:
12:
11:
5:
307:
305:
297:
296:
286:
285:
282:
281:
276:
271:
266:
261:
256:
251:
246:
241:
236:
229:
226:
93:
92:
83:
71:
70:
67:
66:
58:
53:
50:
38:
37:
29:
27:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
306:
295:
292:
291:
289:
280:
277:
275:
272:
270:
267:
265:
262:
260:
257:
255:
252:
250:
247:
245:
242:
240:
237:
235:
232:
231:
227:
225:
222:
218:
217:
213:
207:
205:
199:
195:
193:
190:broken? Does
189:
185:
182:broken? Does
181:
177:
172:
169:
165:
160:
158:
154:
149:
146:
142:
138:
134:
129:
127:
123:
122:good articles
119:
114:
110:
108:
107:
102:
101:
90:
87:
84:
77:
76:
64:
60:
59:
56:
51:
46:
42:
36:
34:
28:
21:
20:
223:
219:
215:
211:
208:
200:
196:
191:
183:
173:
161:
150:
130:
125:
115:
111:
104:
98:
96:
88:
85:
30:
31:This is an
141:Macropædia
137:Micropædia
133:Britannica
153:elephants
288:Category
228:See also
145:only 700
55:Shortcut
180:ArbCom
157:truthy
116:Does "
63:WP:MNF
33:essay
192:this
184:this
143:has
126:what
89:What
212:not
188:AfD
176:RfA
174:Is
97:Is
290::
109:?
35:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.