Ok, we were arguing different things. I was saying that it's
acceptable that an article like GWB become more diffficult to edit.
You're saying that it's not acceptable that it become frozen.
Steve
On 3/15/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/15/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/15/06, The Cunctator
<cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It shouldn't become more difficult because
editing would require
engaging a thicket of non-human-understandable templates or dealing
with a 100,000 word document, or satisfying anything other than
objective criteria to make a change.
If Wikipedia articles get frozen in stone we lose in the long run.
The devil's advocate might ask, what changes need to be made to
[[George W Bush]] that aren't getting made because it's all too much
hard work?
In other words, the semi-protected articles probably *are* approaching
perfection. In as much as GWB can ever be perfect.
Wouldn't be a very good devil's advocate. There's been millions of
consequences of the Bush presidency, and millions to come. Until the
corpus of George W. Bush-related entries covers all of them, the
articles won't be perfect. As the gateway to that information,
[[George W. Bush]] will constantly need to change.
Or shorter: W. still has two years to go in his presidency. An article
about W. that stopped history at 2006 would be strangely incomplete.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l