On 7/1/07, Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)att.net> wrote:
White Cat wrote:
On 7/2/07, Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)att.net>
wrote:
White Cat wrote:
I do not understand this overindulgence with the
details.
If you don't understand the importance of getting details right,
should
you be editing Wikipedia?
This is a mailing list not an article. You are
borderlining trolling
and I
suggest you stop
My question (and it was a *question*) was not about whether this
is a
mailing list or an article. It was about your attitude, and attitude
matters whether it's on a mailing list, a wiki, in person, on IRC, or
wherever, because it seeps from any of these very quickly into the
others. The people who gripe about detrimental attitudes on IRC, or RfA,
or AfD, are complaining because they feel those attitudes end up
affecting articles.
What I intended was to highlight the very serious problem of taking a
cavalier attitude toward facts. Unfortunately, exactly the attitude you
expressed is too common among our contributors and is responsible for a
great deal of the damage Wikipedia's reputation has endured. Do you want
to contribute to that, or do you want to fix it?
--Michael Snow
Yes, there can be a rather cavalier attitude about facts on Wikipedia.
Fact: there was much longer and more in-depth coverage on the 9/11
attacks in American than on Anna Nicole Smith. Programming on all
major stations was interrupted for days on end for the former, while
the latter was covered on news and in sound bites in between shows,
airporst were not closed all over the USA for Anna Nicole Smith's
death.
KP