On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 05:09:34PM +0100, Owen McKnight wrote:
Janet McKnight <janetmck(a)chiark.greenend.org.uk>
There are lots of pages about the City and the
non-geo-locateable things which are probably adequately covered
by Wikipedia, e.g.:
I feel really mean saying "this stuff should go!" when someone
has put lots of effort into it, but I think it's not really
sensibly within scope (& there are better places for it).
I'm happy for all of that to go, precisely because Wikipedia covers it
all far better than the Open Guide ever will. I think they're all
arguably within scope, but our efforts would be better concentrated on
content that isn't available elsewhere, much of which Wikipedia would
consider too trivial to be notable. Shops, venues, parks, schools...
Question: Is there anything appropriate for the Open Guide that
doesn't have a geographical location?
I would rather not strip the Oxford Guide of non-geotagged content.
It's true that wikipedia may cover some subjects in more detail, or
better, than we are, but there's room for both.
Dominic Hargreaves | http://www.larted.org.uk/~dom/
PGP key 5178E2A5 from the.earth.li (keyserver,web,email)