2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I posted this question on the Wikipedia Deschutes River discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deschutes_River_(Oregon)

Maybe someone can find something!

posted 4 years ago
view in context

This is a great topic. (Disclosure: I'm in the WikiProject Oregon community with Pete.) Both encyclopedias are incredibly valuable but take a different approach to information. The "traditional" model of the OE, using experts and peer reviews, puts a priority on depth; go deep with a lot of articles first, then spread out broadly. Meanwhile, Wikipedia starts with breadth; start a lot of articles, then go deep on them as possible.

So there is a place for both of them. I use the Oregon Encyclopedia as a reference (or at least a reference to where to find primary and secondary sources) for Wikipedia articles all the time. It would be great if the OE could take some of the existing Wikipedia Oregon articles that have been started, have had resources uncovered, and "go deep" with them.

posted 4 years ago
view in context