On 31 Mar 2007 at 23:20, "Matthew Brown" <morven(a)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!
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site:
http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips:
http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site:
http://domains.dan.info/