From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted! Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:21:21 -0500
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted! Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:32:21 -0500
I'd just like to remind people that Wikipedia was doing quite well in the Age Before Required Sourcing.
You may consider yourself a specialist "in well-sourced articles on topics for which such sources exist" but don't tar me with that same brush.
You use the words "we" and "us" a bit too cavalierly, I think. Wikipedia is healthiest when it allows any number of motivations for contributors, rather than enforcing a Platonic model of the perfect Wikipedian.
You're reading a bit more into my words than I ever intended, but I'll lay off on the idealistic "we". I don't think Wikipedia is healthier without sourcing, but I'll allow for disagreement there. What we're dealing with is a conflict of visions of what Wikipedia ought to be. Do we strive for completeness and inclusiveness or for better sourcing and higher quality coverage? I identify more with the drive for quality, and I'm comfortable looking elsewhere for certain topics, which can't be covered in the way I think Wikipedia should.
GTB
_________________________________________________________________ Fixing up the home? Live Search can help http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&loca...