On 31/03/2009, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
There's change, and then there is the seeming of
change. I don't think its
cynical to oppose processes that appear to be helpful, but may actually set
progress back.
I'm pretty sure it's inevitable in the long run though. In the early
days of anything like wikipedia drastic changes are going to be the
norm; the articles aren't worth protecting much, almost any change
improves the articles, in some cases even those by vandals! Later,
when the articles are in a generally good state, changes have to
mulled over more carefully, because you're protecting the information
and effort that was put there over several years; most changes are
likely to lower the quality.
So you would expect that vandal protection and stabilisation and
quality control in general will need beefing up as the wikipedia
approaches a finish.
The only question in my mind is how soon or late we do this, not
whether we do this.
It looks like there's a convincing argument that says that BLP
articles need it right now, so that's the current need, and it will
spread out into the wikipedia from there; perhaps into FA quality
articles after that.
Nathan
--
-Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly
imperfect world would be *much* better. Life in an imperfectly perfect
world would be pretty ghastly though.