[WikiEN-l] On Completeness and Restrictiveness (was Re: GNAA Deleted!)

[The Cunctator]

On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
> >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
> >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:21:21 -0500
> >
> >On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
> > > > > >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > > > > >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> > > > > >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
> > > > > >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:32:21 -0500
> > > > > >
> >
> >
> >I'd just like to remind people that Wikipedia was doing quite well in the
> >Age Before Required Sourcing.
> >
> >You may consider yourself a specialist "in well-sourced articles on
> topics
> >for which such sources exist" but don't tar me with that same brush.
> >
> >You use the words "we" and "us" a bit too cavalierly, I think. Wikipedia
> is
> >healthiest when it allows any number of motivations for contributors,
> >rather
> >than enforcing a Platonic model of the
> >perfect Wikipedian.
>
> You're reading a bit more into my words than I ever intended, but I'll lay
> off on the idealistic "we".  I don't think Wikipedia is healthier without
> sourcing, but I'll allow for disagreement there.  What we're dealing with
> is
> a conflict of visions of what Wikipedia ought to be.  Do we strive for
> completeness and inclusiveness or for better sourcing and higher quality
> coverage?  I identify more with the drive for quality, and I'm comfortable
> looking elsewhere for certain topics, which can't be covered in the way I
> think Wikipedia should.


Oh, I do think Wikipedia is healthier with sourcing. But I think you're
right -- I identify more with completeness than for restrictiveness. I think
the idea that quality and completeness have to be oppositional is a false
dilemma. I do believe that the current trend of mega-articles does grossly
exacerbate that conflict.