I question the real-wiki nature of this concept.
If the article quality on the whole genuinely has gone down, then
there's always the revert button. Sometimes reverting part or all of
an article back months or years is perfectly justified. Point of fact
I've done it.
More usually, it's arguable, and If it's arguable, then it probably
hasn't gone down in aggregate much or at all, it's better in some
ways, worse in others; and that's a very different thing.
On 07/08/2010, William Beutler <williambeutler(a)gmail.com> wrote:
But Eventualism implies that articles will get better
over time, that the
article's value over the long term matters more than its value in the short
term. I think Destructionism raises the point that article quality goes in
both directions, which is a point worth making whatever it's called.
And to those asking for an example, not to be glib, but here's a place to
start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Delisted_good_articles
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Carcharoth
<carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com>wrote;wrote:
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 3:13 AM, William Beutler
<williambeutler(a)gmail.com> wrote:
As little as I wish to speak for him, nor do I
wish to summarize David,
but
I think he's talking about a different thing,
not about FAs, but how
quality
articles evolve over time, especially as major
facts (or received
wisdom)
changes. In that case, I default to the status quo on en-wp, which I
think
is better than not, as I'm sure most of us
do.
Maybe "Constructionism" as an opposite to "Destructionism"?
I think another term used is "eventualism".
Carcharoth
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l