Board Thread:SmashWiki Business/@comment-12408658-20130912003222/@comment-8-20130913161259

I'd argue that it's possible to link to other types of resources, sort of like Wikipedia has boxes for "Wikimedia Commons has media related to: ...". The image collections are not necessarily "encyclopedic", but they are a useful or interesting resource for Wikipedia readers.

I can also imagine situations where Wikipedia linked to fiction. For example, if there were a famous story about the topic, it might be linked in the references or as a "see also". Maybe a link to a category would be better than to a specific story?

And one more counter-point (and this is one I'm personally passionate about) what is "encyclopedic"? It used to mean "information found in 20 volumes written by professional writers and sold door to door.

At the moment, it's sorta starting to mean "what Wikipedia does", and I believe that's going to be stagnating. There are a whole lot of new ways to present information, and to lead to new resources that readers might enjoy or find useful. And no reason why wikis can't experiment with them :)

But anyway... note that all this is my personal opinion, and not me deciding anything at all. This is one for you (collectively) to work out :)