I apologize for this message. I'm getting overreactive again. Leaving this group now for personal reasons. Andre Engels

Andre Engels wrote: Well, I think it's right, but I also think that we don't really need to come to any specific conclusion about it, so long as we have avenues for people of different viewpoints to peacefully pursue their goals. That is, people who have a more "deletionist" viewpoint in which the range of appropriate topics is more narrow can work on that aspect of things, while people who have a more "completionist" viewpoint in which the range of appropriate topics is more broad can work on _that_ aspect of things. No, that's precisely what I'm arguing *against*. This is exactly why we should not have *another* project, but should instead pursue a certification process within Wikipedia proper. Well, I agree with you that Wikipedia ought not to be "just a dumping place for information". But surely you will agree with me that there is room for differing viewpoints on just where that boundary lies? That we ought not to pursue the narrowest possible viewpoint _solely_? --Jimbo

Evan Prodromou wrote: We could also use this for brilliant-prose tagging and other forms of article review... [[prose-quality=0.7]] [[accuracy=0.8]] [[NPOV=0.9]] -- Neil

On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 12:25:32PM -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote: [[Print: no]] -- Audin Malmin - audin(a)okb-1.org The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy. -- Woodrow Wilson

it in don't The whole question boils down to how people develop their personal viewpoint of what belongs in an online encyclopedia. Everyone to some degree, reasonably, forms that viewpoint based on analogy to a print encyclopedia. And I think the reasonable points of lessons to draw from paper encyclopedias are in the standards of scholarship, tone, and readability. These are lessons that are independent of media. They also give a good sense of what was historically considered important. But it is not a good idea to draw too many lessons from the depth and breadth of coverage and the structure of paper encyclopedias. These are areas which are shaped by the constraints and strengths of the particular medium of paper. --tc

On Thursday, December 18, 2003, at 03:51 AM, magnus,manske wrote: Hold up. Do we? Is this to be a paper or electronic encyclopedia? Or both? Or am I talking about two different proposals? It seems a shame to me to freeze and de-wikify entries if not for the sole purpose of inscribing it on a medium that can't be edited (ie., paper). I would much prefer a tagging system which allows us to mark entries as complete. Note that 'complete' is not the same as 'finished'. No entry should ever be finished. But some entries have achieved completion, where the need only adjustment; think opposite of stub. Furthermore, these entries rarely devolve from their complete status, though if they did for some reason the tag could be quickly removed (or, preferably, the entry re-completed :) ). Let me back up my opinion with personal experience: I'm a dormant h2g2 Researcher (old Researchers never die, they just let their forum backlog pile up...). On h2g2, only one researcher has write-access to an article in the Unedited Guide (the collection of articles which have not gone thought the editing process). Once an article is edited, no one (except the Italics, the staff editors) has write-access. Each entry has a forum where corrections and updates may be posted, but the entry itself is *never* updated. Not so much by policy, but out of inconvenience. I realize that entries in an electronic frozen Wikipedia would probably be updated periodically from the wiki counterpart, avoiding this folly, but why bother? Why would we edit a complete (as defined above) entry so as to make it no longer qualify for the frozen counterpart? It seems silly to bother with the frozen version at all. Once an entry is complete, it ought to remain so, even as a wiki entry. Or have we lost faith in the wiki? And if so, why? Peter --- Funding for this program comes from Borders without Doctors: The Bookstore Chain That Sounds Like a Charity. --Harry Shearer, Le Show

On Thursday, December 18, 2003, at 07:14 PM, The Cunctator wrote: Yes. It is. Thank you. :) Actually, I think I considered the word 'sufficient' and didn't like the negative connotation. But it you ignore that, 'sufficient' is, well, sufficient. Peter --- Funding for this program comes from Borders without Doctors: The Bookstore Chain That Sounds Like a Charity. --Harry Shearer, Le Show

On Saturday, December 20, 2003, at 09:12 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote: I like the term 'good enough'. It's definitely better than my 'complete' (why I basically tried to redefine 'slightly' to become it's own antonym) and I like its connotations better than those of 'sufficient'. 'Good enough' is reminiscent of 'zarro boogs'. Exactly This is a sticky point. I'm divided between your point above and this question: If any edit removes the tag to protect against vandalism, will we ever have enough articles tagged? Also, who is tagging the articles? Can't a vandal tag? Or is it safe enough to limit it to registered users? Peter --- Funding for this program comes from Borders without Doctors: The Bookstore Chain That Sounds Like a Charity. --Harry Shearer, Le Show