I accept that we should stay as close to Wikipedia as possible. However, Wikipedia has a number of errors large and small. Preferably, you should correct errors on Wikipedia before you copy material. At the very least, you should introduce corrected material on Familypedia. rtol 10:43, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. Of course, many errors may not be noticed until after we have copied. Then I would fix them here first and go to do the same on WP if I felt I had the time and inclination and the necessary documentary evidence! -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 07:44, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia has been known to undergo major revisions in naming standards and other matters. We don't have the personpower to keep up with all of that.
Small changes in "place" or "person" articles are probably not worth our while folllowing unless someone is keen.
Any change to an article of ours that was copied from WP risks losing genealogical material that we added after the earlier copying, so please take care if replacing parts of a FP page.
How much of an article to copy?
I think we may often copy far more than is relevant. Do genealogists want to know the rainfall records or the successes of the local football team in 2011? It is so easy to go to the WP article for those if you want them (e.g. if you are visiting cemeteries and want to know what clothes to pack, or if you have a relative in the current sports team).
When I was more familiar with WeRelate, it had (I think) a system of copying only the introduction and history sections of a WP article, updating semi-automatically at intervals of a few months. I like that idea.