On 3/31/07, doc <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
So wikipedia is doomed to keep having its sordid
downside? We're doomed
to always be fighting a losing battle against libels and lies? We're
doomed to go on consoling victims with empty words? And there's nothing
we can do about it? No way we can make the system even a little better?
It isn't even worth the attempt?
I refuse to be that pessimistic or that cynical. The day I am, I will
really quit.
Wikipedia cannot be perfect. Wikipedia can get better. IMO,
Wikipedia is a lot less bad, percentage-wise, than it seems to someone
who spends a lot of time trying to clean up biographical articles or
reading OTRS complaints.
I am fearful of the rush to 'do something' without the examination of
likely consequences. I am pessimistic about more rules being the cure
for current rules being ignored. I am cynical about the prospects for
success of any solution that starts with drastic over-reaction and
ignoring the reasons why Wikipedia is as successful as it is.
-Matt