On 7/1/07, Michael Snow wikipedia@att.net wrote:
White Cat wrote:
On 7/2/07, Michael Snow wikipedia@att.net wrote:
White Cat wrote:
I do not understand this overindulgence with the details.
If you don't understand the importance of getting details right, should you be editing Wikipedia?
This is a mailing list not an article. You are borderlining trolling and I suggest you stop
My question (and it was a *question*) was not about whether this is a mailing list or an article. It was about your attitude, and attitude matters whether it's on a mailing list, a wiki, in person, on IRC, or wherever, because it seeps from any of these very quickly into the others. The people who gripe about detrimental attitudes on IRC, or RfA, or AfD, are complaining because they feel those attitudes end up affecting articles.
What I intended was to highlight the very serious problem of taking a cavalier attitude toward facts. Unfortunately, exactly the attitude you expressed is too common among our contributors and is responsible for a great deal of the damage Wikipedia's reputation has endured. Do you want to contribute to that, or do you want to fix it?
--Michael Snow
Yes, there can be a rather cavalier attitude about facts on Wikipedia.
Fact: there was much longer and more in-depth coverage on the 9/11 attacks in American than on Anna Nicole Smith. Programming on all major stations was interrupted for days on end for the former, while the latter was covered on news and in sound bites in between shows, airporst were not closed all over the USA for Anna Nicole Smith's death.
KP