2008/10/17 Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net>et>:
Thanks for your thoughts, geni. Although I see value
in linking the years,
what, in the end, I am REALLY looking for is some consistency. I still do
not understand fully much of the decision-making process that goes into
matters such as deciding on a specific format policy. But what I do see
throughout the encyclopedia is an arbitrariness in form and structure that
greatly detracts from the professionalism of the Project. A reader is coming
to the encyclopedia looking for information on a particular subject. That
information should be presented in a consistent, reliable, familiar form.
This form becomes the "signature" of the encyclopedia. As the Wikipedia
Project matures, it is important that the decision-making processes
regarding such basic issues as its very form and structure mature as well.
Surely the thing you're bringing up - people going around and
delinking dates for standardisation - is pretty much guaranteed to
bring greater consistency of form in the medium term? There's two and
a half million articles, most of which will have some date linking, so
it's going to take time to get them all; a transitional period is
always necessary for big changes. Nonetheless, I'm sure that in a
month or two we'll be a lot closer to our ideal of consistency of
style, once the new system's shaken out.
The only real issue, from a consistency viewpoint, is that it decided
to rescind a previous standard form. This is not a dealbreaker - yes,
consistency over time is nice, but we should never be backed into a
corner of continuing with a problematic "solution" simply because it
seemed like a good idea five years ago, when the issues were much
different.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk