On Feb 1, 2008 4:59 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 1, 2008 4:47 PM, Thomas Dalton
<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/02/2008, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 02/02/2008, Thomas Dalton
<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
That was the original idea, I agree, but
we've moved on from that.
Not remotely. Vast majority of our information is uncited.
And that's a bag thing.
I assume you meant "bad"
In my opinion, yes - it would be nice to have a cite for everything.
It's also a horrible mistake to, for example, run through WP articles
and either delete everything that isn't cited, or all articles without
RS, or both.
That would remove most of the content, and would be a monumental
flipoff to the community that builds content here.
WP is a multi-dimensional tension system between content creators,
content improvers, citation focused people, readers, policy wonks, the
foundation... An absolutist interpretation of notability, RS, etc
are horrible things to consider.
If you intend to blow up the project, there are more graceful ways,
like simply deleting the whole database, or killing everyone on Earth.
I hate to follow myself up, but...
Getting consensus on a single policy page is different than getting
consensus of the community.
The policy page wonks (those here, and there) need to be aware of the
difference.
If you assault a problem that has intimate interconnections out
through the rest of the project from the narrow perspective of any
corner, the results will be disaster.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com