From: "The Cunctator"
<cunctator(a)gmail.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] On Completeness and Restrictiveness (was Re:
GNAADeleted!)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:58:37 -0500
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator(a)gmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:21:21 -0500
>
>On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator(a)gmail.com>
> > > > >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> > > > >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
> > > > >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
> > > > >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:32:21 -0500
> > > > >
>
>
>I'd just like to remind people that Wikipedia was doing quite well in
the
Age Before
Required Sourcing.
You may consider yourself a specialist "in well-sourced articles on
topics
>for which such sources exist" but don't tar me with that same brush.
>
>You use the words "we" and "us" a bit too cavalierly, I think.
Wikipedia
is
healthiest when it allows any number of
motivations for contributors,
rather
than enforcing a Platonic model of the
perfect Wikipedian.
You're reading a bit more into my words than I ever intended, but I'll
lay
off on the idealistic "we". I
don't think Wikipedia is healthier
without
sourcing, but I'll allow for disagreement
there. What we're dealing
with
is
a conflict of visions of what Wikipedia ought to be. Do we strive for
completeness and inclusiveness or for better sourcing and higher quality
coverage? I identify more with the drive for quality, and I'm
comfortable
looking elsewhere for certain topics, which
can't be covered in the way
I
think Wikipedia should.
Oh, I do think Wikipedia is healthier with sourcing. But I think you're
right -- I identify more with completeness than for restrictiveness. I
think
the idea that quality and completeness have to be oppositional is a false
dilemma. I do believe that the current trend of mega-articles does grossly
exacerbate that conflict.
Clearly, they're not direct opposites, and I hope I didn't come across as
saying they were. However, if one raises the quality bar, more things get
left out, and if one includes certain material, the bar will necessarily go
down. It's in that give-and-take that the conflict arises.
GTB
_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!