We really, really need stable versions. There's no point in trying to spruce up the writing style of heavily-trafficked articles until we get them; I gave up a long time ago.
On 9/7/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Against my better judgment, I attempted to improve the wording of a particularly badly written article. Last time I did this ([[Spruce goose]]), it got reverted. Guess what?
Here are my changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bird_strike&diff=156028841&...
And the (partial) revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bird_strike&diff=next&oldi...
The reverter seems to think it's important to mention that birdstrikes "will result in major injuries or death to the bird" and is particularly enamored with the phrasing in "High speeds, however, as for example with modern jet engine aircraft will produce considerable energy and may cause considerable damage ".
Is it just aviation? Is it just me being jaded and impatient? Or is this the reason so much of Wikipedia prose is so crap? Because the payoff for trying to fix it is so small, and editors put so much weight on every possible detail being retained, at the expense of clarity and readability?
Feel free to tell me if I'm totally off base here.
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l