On 8/22/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
The argument I think you're presenting here is counter productive: that we are still working on making an encyclopedia. We're not. We've made an encyclopedia. Now need need to move on and work on making an encyclopedia that doesn't suck.
I consider an encyclopedia something that contain's all the world's knowledge -- and we're far from that. We've got a long way to go before we've made an encyclopedia.
Your concept that we're not still working on making an encyclopedia is pretty amazing.
New articles are still important, as you've pointed out... But I've seen no evidence that new article creation belongs even on the top 100 task list for making our encyclopedia not suck.
Just because we know a lot more about new article creation than things like stability, verifiability, and consistency is not a reason to give new article creation more importance than it is due.
Comprehensiveness is as important as verifiability. Stability? Why is that desirable?
And some degree of consistency is good but too much is the hobgoblin of little minds.
Comprehensiveness, clarity, verifiability, and neutrality seem to be more important than stability and consistency to me.