On 31 Mar 2007 at 23:20, "Matthew Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia cannot be perfect. Wikipedia can get better. IMO, Wikipedia is a lot less bad, percentage-wise, than it seems to someone who spends a lot of time trying to clean up biographical articles or reading OTRS complaints.
...and a lot less good, percentage-wise, than it seems to someone who spends a lot of time reading featured articles. Using the "Random article" link repeatedly tends to result in unexceptional mediocrity; neither anything scandalously bad nor brilliantly good.
(When I tried it just now, one of the articles I got was [[List of asteroids/83201-83300]], which happens to include some of those that were discovered on September 11, 2001. Interesting. Must be a conspiracy!)
I am fearful of the rush to 'do something' without the examination of likely consequences. I am pessimistic about more rules being the cure for current rules being ignored. I am cynical about the prospects for success of any solution that starts with drastic over-reaction and ignoring the reasons why Wikipedia is as successful as it is.
Don't just do something... stand there!