In a message dated 4/22/2007 2:49:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, morven@gmail.com writes:
I agree. Just as police officers have a distorted view of society through dealing with its worst elements constantly, OTRS volunteers are constantly subjected to the worst, most problematic articles on Wikipedia. It's easy to start thinking these are representative, rather than outliers.
I agree with Shimgray's response. What more, when someone feels libeled, we cannot defend ourselves by saying, "Well, at least our other stuff is accurate."
Danny
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
On 4/22/07, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I agree with Shimgray's response. What more, when someone feels libeled, we cannot defend ourselves by saying, "Well, at least our other stuff is accurate."
We don't have to pretend that a huge proportion of our living-person biographies are problematic, either. Nor do we have to accept that every complaint is justified, since many are not, or are questionable.
What we do have to do is work out better ways of identifying good and bad articles ahead of complaints, and ways to keep track of article status. Stable versions would definitely help in this.
In many respects, it's entirely the problem that the vast majority of articles are unproblematic; it means the bad ones are the rare needles in a very big haystack indeed.
-Matt