On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
A single point of failure.
Exactly: a single point of failure. A system where a single point of failure can have such consequences, potentially corrupting knowledge forever, is a bad system. It's not robust.
Andreas, you apparently did not read the following sentence: "Of course, the opposite is also true: it's a single point of openness, correction, information. "
At last, I agree with Gerard: you seem not to accept people arguments and continue to reiterate yours again and again. The problem, to me, is that you don't like Wikis: you don't like that they are open, and prone to errors and vulnerable. Yet, this is our greatest weakness and strength, at the same time. The Wikimedia movement, at least for the last 15 years, believes in this, is one of our pillars. So, if you don't like it, maybe the Wikimedia movements is not suitable for you, maybe you'd like more working in Citizendium or something. There's no shame in it, and I really believe it: it's just a matter of choice.
I personally choose to believe in openness as a way to leverage good will from people, willingness to share knowledge. I believe Wikidata is going in the same direction, and I have not found evidence yet that the "power and centralisation" of data make the openness a problem of a different magnitudo, different from Wikipedia.
I'm happy to discuss this point specifically, as I think we can have a reasonable and constructive debate on this.
But if you reiterate examples on Wikipedia, you lose me. We already have taken a choice, we believe that the payoff between openness and control is worth it.
Are these not just well-worn platitudes? If you cared so much about quality, you or someone else would have fixed the Grasulf II of Friuli entry by now.
You are included in the set of "someone else", you found all the errors, and you could have corrected them. You decided it was best to write a very long mail instead of correcting them. It's you're right, but it's not the wikimedia way. The Wikimedia way is wonderfully explained in three magical words: so fix it [1].
Aubrey