On 8/28/07, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/28/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
... In the same vein, there's also a
persistent bias against
"deletion" which I can't comprehend. We're all called editors, and the
best editors cut ruthlessly and relentlessly. (Not thoughtlessly,
though, and I think that some people doing it thoughtlessly have created
a bias against doing it at all. This is something else which must be
addressed.)
I think the latter point is the key there. I'm all for editorial (in
the improve the coverage or writing or content sense) deletion; I know
that saying with a really good sentence what takes a really crappy
paragraph is high art and a goal for us all.
Saying better and more directly and sometimes more tersely is good.
Taking content out because you don't think it belongs in this
encyclopedia is very different.
That is not to say we don't have crap, but ...
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com
This kind of editor is just the sort for whom AGF need never apply,
and is likely to be drummed out of Wikipedia rather quickly. Yes,
Todd is correct that ownership is a problem. And when good copy
editors come in, and start making articles more direct, and generally
improving how things are said, they get pounced upon, and the're out
of here in nothing flat.
I agree that ownership is a major problem on Wikipedia.
I love all the editors who come by and edit my prose. I will never
post a list of articles I have worked on, because nothing I've done
deserves that kind of attachment to me, due to all the excellent
people who've spit-shined the least details of everything I've
written.
KP