[Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

[Andreas Kolbe]

> Putting in place what are effectively featured article
> standards would
> for starting new articles would be a great way of killing
> the project
> if it was remotely enforceable.
> 
> Worse still articles like [[Canal]] would be effectively
> unrwritable
> by anyone. Since there is not going to be anyone aware of
> all the
> worldwide scholarly literature on the topic.
> 
> [[Canals of the United Kingdom]] would probably be
> impossible since
> even Charles Hadfield needed help with his The Canals of
> North West
> England book.


I think that is a misunderstanding that operated at the time as well. This is not about having to chew your way through all the available scholarly literature before you are allowed to start the article "canal". 

It is about checking if there *is* any scholarly literature out there. And accessing and using that as you grow the article. 

This is even more important when you start working on an article that has already existed for a number of years, and that other editors have built up to C-Class, or whatever.  Before you jump in and rewrite the whole thing, you should check the sources that are already cited, and check what scholarly sources are out there: authoritative sources that have been cited by many other authors, but still haven't made it into the article.

It is not unusual to find articles that are 5 years old and still don't cite a single scholarly source, even though there are plenty of scholarly sources out there.

Andreas


> > Well, one way is to make clear to our editors that we
> expect them to make a bit of an effort to research the
> existing scholarly literature. (And that they should do so
> first before arguing with people who have completed that
> step already.)
> >
> > However, that idea does encounter resistance. I am
> reminded that I proposed as much once, a good few years ago.
> I started a talk page discussion, and we made some changes
> and additions (some of which are still in the guideline
> today).
> >
> > One change which didn't make it was the addition of
> this sentence:
> >
> > "A review of the existing scholarly literature should
> be the first step in starting work on an article."
> >
> > The way the sentence was edit-warred out of the
> guideline is quite funny, in hindsight. It was removed a day
> later, with the edit summary:
> >
> > "Rm sentence that runs counter to policy."
> >
> > Another editor put it back in, slightly changed, so it
> now said:
> >
> > "A review of the existing scholarly literature *is
> recommended before* starting work on an article."
> >
> > Half an hour later, that was taken out as well, edit
> summary:
> >
> > "Asking the general public to become familiar with
> scholarly literature (which does not exist for all subjects)
> prior to editing places an unrealistic burden upon would-be
> editors. Where’s the policy?"
> >
> > I added it one more time, and it was taken out again
> and described as "nonsense".
> >
> > You get what you pay for.
> >
> > Andreas
> >
>