Comments:Several US universities ban Wikipedia as primary source

The opinion page is back?--70.158.160.6 15:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC) (Viridis on Wikipedia).

Assuming this unsubstantiated (but I'll live with it) statement by Pharos remains in this article, "Wikipedia's guidelines, and the statements of its founder, Jimmy Wales, have advised against using Wikipedia or other encyclopedias as a primary source." suggests (here's the fancy word) deprecation for Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is doing too much as a focal point, while its sister projects perform the specialized tasks that lay ground work for material then suitable for encyclopedia-like content. -Edbrown05 09:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see the opinion page getting so much use, unlike last time. On topic comment: Elaborate, Edbrown05. I'm not quite sure what you mean.--67.72.98.106 01:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC) (Viridis on Wikipedia).

I think old school, where an encylopedia is a dusty old thing that sits on a shelf until you need it. And when you need it, you do need it. Wikipedia should not, by way of its popularity, be the first place a wikimedia contributor posts newish content. It's sister projects are more exciting. There is of couse this site, and also Wikitionary excites me, and Commons I contribute to, and the Sources project and all other media projects that build information suitable for encorporation into an encyclopdia. To bypass all those opportunities that would build on our knowledge base for only a one or sentence line in a Wikipedia entry misses it. Wikipedia should build on its sister projects, not direct editting. -Edbrown05 10:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

In other words, Wikipedia is a derivative of its sister projects. -Edbrown05 11:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I see what you mean. The sister projects don't have nearly aas much traffic as I'd like, though (I'm partial to Wikiquote, Wikibooks and Wikiversity, myself).--70.158.160.6 15:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC) (Viridis on Wikipedia).