2008/10/17 Marc Riddell
<michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net>et>:
> Thanks for your thoughts, geni. Although I see value in linking the years,
> what, in the end, I am REALLY looking for is some consistency. I still do
> not understand fully much of the decision-making process that goes into
> matters such as deciding on a specific format policy. But what I do see
> throughout the encyclopedia is an arbitrariness in form and structure that
> greatly detracts from the professionalism of the Project. A reader is coming
> to the encyclopedia looking for information on a particular subject. That
> information should be presented in a consistent, reliable, familiar form.
> This form becomes the "signature" of the encyclopedia. As the Wikipedia
> Project matures, it is important that the decision-making processes
> regarding such basic issues as its very form and structure mature as well.
on 10/18/08 8:58 AM, Andrew Gray at shimgray(a)gmail.com wrote:
Surely the thing you're bringing up - people going around and
delinking dates for standardisation - is pretty much guaranteed to
bring greater consistency of form in the medium term? There's two and
a half million articles, most of which will have some date linking, so
it's going to take time to get them all; a transitional period is
always necessary for big changes. Nonetheless, I'm sure that in a
month or two we'll be a lot closer to our ideal of consistency of
style, once the new system's shaken out.
The only real issue, from a consistency viewpoint, is that it decided
to rescind a previous standard form. This is not a dealbreaker - yes,
consistency over time is nice, but we should never be backed into a
corner of continuing with a problematic "solution" simply because it
seemed like a good idea five years ago, when the issues were much
different.
I agree with much of what you say, Andrew. And, I agree that the issue of
date formatting will settle down in time. (I am still going to press for my
preference of year-only dating; I just haven't decided what form of activism
to take to pursue it :-)
I was stepping back and looking at the encyclopedia as a whole. A random
selection of, say, 50 Articles can reveal many - way too many - different
forms in construction and layout. As you are stepping through them it can
not only appear as though you were viewing different pages, but viewing
entirely different sites. The only consistency is the logo. I wish there
were a way to take an opinion poll of the readers, who are not editors, of
the encyclopedia. It is for them that the Project exists isn't it?
And, I am concerned about the processes by which such issues as form and
style are decided in the encyclopedia. These processes may have been
appropriate for the early stages of the Project, but, as the Project matures
and the encyclopedia becomes more complex, other, more stable ones must be
addressed and implemented.
Chaos can be a good thing; it means that change is happening. But organized
chaos is better; it means that there is some form of rational planning
involved.
Marc