Difference between revisions 2351 and 2352 on metawiki

next diff >
Talk:Wikipedic
What the hell is this? This is just a bad joke, right? --[[User:Maveric149|mav]]

:no, not a joke.

I recommend moving to [http://meta.wikipedia.com/ meta]. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|Brion]] 23:36 Oct 1, 2002 (UTC)

:an encylopedia of all knowledge would include meta knowledge.

(contracted; show full)t was humorous, but because there were better ways to explain and illustrate that concept.  Your "Wikipedic" example is a fine humorous example of something similar to the Richard paradox or the Barber paradox.  But we already have good articles on those, and there's no need to make up a term that doesn't really exist in any field of study and confuse readers that this is something significant.  --[[User:Lee Daniel Crocker|LDC]]

:can a field of study exist completely within Wikipedia?

⏎
Perhaps at some point.  But our current policy is "no original research"; that is, the purpose of Wikipedia is to explain the ''present'' state of general academic fields, not to explore new ones.  Your "Wikipedic" stuff mihgt be fine as a paragraph or two inside an article about paradoxes like Russel's and others--but that's all it is, a nice example.  It is certainly not a "field of study" in any sense that ought to get its own article.⏎
⏎