Ok, we were arguing different things. I was saying that it's acceptable that an article like GWB become more diffficult to edit. You're saying that it's not acceptable that it become frozen.
Steve
On 3/15/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/15/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/15/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
It shouldn't become more difficult because editing would require engaging a thicket of non-human-understandable templates or dealing with a 100,000 word document, or satisfying anything other than objective criteria to make a change.
If Wikipedia articles get frozen in stone we lose in the long run.
The devil's advocate might ask, what changes need to be made to [[George W Bush]] that aren't getting made because it's all too much hard work?
In other words, the semi-protected articles probably *are* approaching perfection. In as much as GWB can ever be perfect.
Wouldn't be a very good devil's advocate. There's been millions of consequences of the Bush presidency, and millions to come. Until the corpus of George W. Bush-related entries covers all of them, the articles won't be perfect. As the gateway to that information, [[George W. Bush]] will constantly need to change.
Or shorter: W. still has two years to go in his presidency. An article about W. that stopped history at 2006 would be strangely incomplete. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l