On 7/25/06, Mak makwik@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed, and in a similar vein, there was the cogent observation that the first person to an article has the greatest opportunity to shape its tone, form and structure.
I completely agree with this observation, and I think it's a major problem with many of the articles taken from the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica. See, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Purcell&direction=next&a... which has not changed significantly in form (barring big headings) since that first hunk of encyclopedia text. I've attempted to remove the most
As a general rule, I think this has more to do with the amount of effort expended on the original writing compared to subsequent effort. If one contributor puts in 100 hours on an article, and subsequent contributors total 1 hour, it would hardly surprising that their impact is minimal.
Certainly, our articles borrowed from 1911, Cyclopaedia, or the Catholic Encyclopedia do have certain leanings, and focuses which do not match our normal standards. But they're a good starting point, and a hell of a lot better than a redlink.
Steve