[WikiEN-l] We aren't here to write an encyclopaedia, are we?

[Jimmy Wales]

I think your approach is the right one.  For things like "List of ethnic
slurs" the only approach I've ever seen to turn them into good articles
is to get positively hardcore about cites.  Ask around for help, a lot
of good editors will back you up.

[[Inherently funny words]] used to be nonsense, but now it is (usually)
a quite interesting and quirky article, because it has sources.




Guettarda wrote:
> I have decided to try to clean up the [[List of ethnic slurs]] article -
> it's a mess of uncited and apparently unverifiable information.  In trying
> to get the ball rolling I have been opposed at (almost) every turn by an
> editor whose view of Wikipedia seems to be:
> 
> "''Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged defines
> an encyclopedia as 'a work that treats comprehensively all the various
> branches of knowledge and that is usually composed of individual articles
> arranged alphabetically'. Thus, in Wikipedia--the largest encyclopedia ever
> created--any knowledge can be included. Stroll by a library reference
> section and you will find encyclopedias of agriculture, of computing, of
> 'slang,' and so on. This article shows just how much encyclopedic Wikipedia
> is."
> 
> I tried to counter this with policy - WP:V, WP:CITE, and "Wikipedia is not
> an indiscriminate collection of nformation" to which I received the
> following reply:
> 
> "In any case, I'd encourage you not to live your life based on regulations,
> because life is too complicated to regulate. To do so makes one a
> [[wiktionary:simpleton|simpleton]]. In any case, regulations must be
> interpreted, and the consensus of the Wikipedia community appears to be that
> the rules should not be enforced. Since you are the first editor I have ever
> met to actually try to enforce these rules, you are in uncharted terrritory,
> for sure."
> 
> While this editor is relatively new s/he is not a total newbie - s/he has
> over 1300 edits, been editing for several months.  While I realise that WP:V
> and WP:CITE tend to only get a lot of attention in content disputes (the
> Intelligent design article being the one where I have seen it most) the idea
> that "the consensus of the Wikipedia community appears to be that the rules
> should not be enforced" just boggles the mind.  While this editor appears to
> live at the opposite end of the world from the AFD addicts, I suspect that
> both of these are symptoms of an underlying problem of people who don't
> appear to be here to write a high-quality encyclopaedia.  Suddenly I long to
> argue with POV-pushers -  I would rather argue the validity of references
> than have someone tell me that consensus is that we don't need references...
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Ian
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>