The problem with wikipedia ...[edit]

... is that it will never be a real encyclopedia, and yet some of its editors refuse to acknowledge that fact.

Ironically, it is precisely because it will never be a real encyclopedia that Wikipedia is such a good thing. Encyclopedias are static, solemn, and attempt the impossible: to be a factual repository. That is based on a single, flawed assumption: that facts are static.

But facts aren't static. The world isn't flat. There is a smaller particle than an atom. Light is a wave and a particle. E may or may not equal ... you get the picture.

Emulating an encyclopedia is a good place to start, but Wikipedia needs to be more than that. It needs to be a flexible reference for the people. Emulating NPOV is a fantastic thing, but emulating all aspects of encyclopedic style is not. There are different ways to write, different ways to explain things. Wikipedia should allow these ways to be explored.