On 2/27/07, T P t0m0p0@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/26/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On Feb 26, 2007, at 8:40 PM, T P wrote:
I noted elsewhere that, as a volunteeer effort, Wikipedia is
primarily
written to satisfiy the needs of the writers.
and
Practically speaking, what matters is the opinions of the people working on Wikipedia, because you sure as hell aren't going to "fix" Wikipedia just because outsiders think it's broken.
on 2/26/07 8:44 PM, Phil Sandifer at Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
There's not much to say here. Both of these statements are, I think, 100% wrong. They are the polar opposite of how Wikipedia should work.
They represent the exact instinct that causes many of the problems
I've been describing here. I think it is vital that we do everything
we can to resist these attitudes on every conceivable level.
I think you need to distinguish between the way Wikipedia works and the way you think it should work. My comments relate to the former. Yours relate to the latter.
If you can think of a way to make a volunteer organization like Wikipedia work the way you think it should work, more power to you.
Adam
Correction: that's the way *AfD* works. You note that WP exists to serve the writers, but most (if not all) of those commenting on certain nominations may have never written on the topic concerned. That's not to say they should be ignored, because WP works by consensus, but if the people who know most about a field are writing about something, or saying that something deserves an article, then generally shouldn't it be included, unless it fails certain guidelines/policies, e.g. verifiability?
Johnleemk