![[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]](images/stone-hello.png "Sensei's Library")
While the existing entries for Go on the Wikipedia have a good reason for being there, I doubt the Wikipedia is a suitable place for extensive coverage of the game. First a disclaimer: I'm in no way biased towards SL for reasons of affiliation. I know godiscussions.com exists, and if it turns out to be a more succesful platform for an expert knowledge base, then so be it.
The reason why I think it's not a good idea is that I have different expectations from an encyclopedia than from an expert book, whether tangible or online. From an encyclopedea I expect a topic treatment so that I can understand it in a couple of reads. For more thorough treatment I want to be referred to expert books (sites), for which I accept that some experience or knowledge is assumed.
Diagrams on WP suggest we want to start discussing game positions there. Imagine all board games start having their strategy guides on WP. Imagine a full treatment of soccer championships, music theory, post stamp collections, ...
If at all manageable, experts and afficionados will always be drawn to specific sites (books), instead of wading through the massive information in one ambitious encyclopedia.
It seems that Wikipedia has an essentially unlimited storage space. If it is not already, I think it will eventually become a significant global cultural artifact, containing the world's largest unified collection of factual knowledge and layperson-accessible theory.
So, it would only be a bonus if detailed articles on strategy and tactics were included there. The real issue would be quality control. SL has a fairly liberal atmosphere, but the folks at WP are much stricter. I believe that this will result over time in advanced topics receiving as high-level a treatment as possible.
Charles Doesn't work quite like that. The policy on citing sources would mean in effect you can only quote what the books say (which, as we know, can be misleading if not wrong). Now I think that policy ought not to be applied pedantically, to go. However it probably does shape the kind of topics that are considered for inclusion: factual is easiest.