Cunc wrote:
Yes. I also am one who believes that Wikipedia
policies should
follow a variant of Occam's Razor--given two reasonable policies,
choose the one less likely to instigate conflict.
I endorse this general concept fully. Editing wikipedia should be
relaxing and enjoyable, and we should all cut each other a major
amount of slack.
I'm a little baffled as to why this topic has turned into such a
perennial dispute. I respect and admire the parties on both sides of
the debate, and I most sincerely hope that they will reach a relaxing
compromise soon.
For example, instead of asserting that There Exists
One Correct
Capitalization For Bird Names, admit that there is clearly dispute in the
outside world as to what is preferable, and let people do what they see fit.
It's the same rule we've followed with American/British spelling, and it
works fine. I'm driven crazy every time I see the [[humour]] article, but I
recognize that it actually isn't important.
It is certainly true that we have had virtually no disputes about
American/British spelling. I'm not sure that this precedent is
assurance of the same thing happening with the Bird/bird issue,
though.
Suppose someone got excited about American/British spelling issues and
started editing dozens and dozens of articles to "fix" it. Would
everyone else just relax and let them have their way? Or would we
start to have other people doing what _they_ see fit and reverting
them.
In practice, our social custom is something like "mild deference to
the article as written". That is, if we come across an
American/British spelling that seems odd to us, we generally just
relax and let it go. We generally respect the wishes of whoever wrote
the article first, although I suppose a change or two here or there
goes unnoticed and without controversy.
That seems like the best policy here, too. If people want to write
with capitalization, let them. If they want to write without
capitalization, let them do that, too. If there are inconsistencies,
that's a bad thing, but not nearly as bad as having good people at
each other's throats over something so minor.
Today somewhere in the world there is someone who wants to learn about
birds. That person might someday become a great scientist who will do
something very useful with the knowledge originally obtained from
wikipedia. We should put every tool in their hands to do that, which
means: more content. It's sad to think of the hours wasted on
capitalization debates, when there's still so much work to be done.
--Jimbo