Mally wrote:

Hmmm... two questions, one relatively trivial and one relatively serious:

1. Why Folk-O-pedia? Obviously deriving from encycl-O-pedia, but in recognition of the role of the wiki software, most similar wikipedia derivations keep the I of wikipedia, i.e. Folk-I-pedia. It seems almost disrespectful to authors and contributors of the enabling software to ignore this unwritten tradition.

The name was debated extensively in other places. Whatever the rights and wrongs, that's what we've ended up with and it's more important to do the job rather than worry about unwritten traditions.

2. Why is it necessary to have a separate folkipedia (sic)? I'm sure there ARE good reasons, but on the face of it, it's hard to see why all this new material specifically covering "Traditional Folk Arts in England and beyond" cannot simply be added into the main Wikipedia structure as for example Breton music and many other types of folk music have already. Is it not divisive to cut this particular branch of folk music from the main structure, and does it not weaken one of the main strengths of Wikipedia, namely to enable all the cross referencing etc which is such a powerful feature of Wikipedia?


See the comment further up about "More junk lacking peer review and references."

See also http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Main_Page for the model.

With respect, we've had the debates and set a course - we want to spend the energy following it, not debating it again.

Best regards,

J