Indeed. I can sign under this. Wait... I have... :)
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:03 AM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
What harms the public view of Wikipedia is not articles on minor subjects, or on matters i anyone will understand are of significance only to fans. What really harms the perceived quality of Wikipedia is promotional and inaccurate articles. almost everyone can realize that the content of a reference work may include things they do not themselves want--but they do expect it to be both honest and accurate.
We could decide either for or against the detailed coverage of popular culture, but what we cannot tolerate is the diversion of effort in dealing with this. There is of course an obvious solution, which is to silence everyone who does not agree with me, but that's not going to fly. What we need is some way of not just forming a compromise but having it persist--otherwise any solution will be back to the same point in a few months. Arb com apparently does not think it is capable of this, but I don't see how else it can be done--they should try a little more boldness. Since they'll be criticised whatever they choose to do or not to do, they might as well decide.
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
- White Cat