Think of it this way...
Wikipedia is like a party. For a successful party you need lots of people. However, does that mean you'll indiscriminantly let people through the door? Like the people prone to violence? The convicted sex offenders? President Bush? You may want a lot of people, but the party's only good if it's the kind of people you'd like to have at a party.
Wikipedia is proving to be a successful party with 1.5 million articles. However, the problem is that there were little standards at the beginning for who was let through the door. Now that we've recognized the problem, what articles can enter the big party of Wikipedia should be a bit more restrictive.
However, as I see it, as long as articles comply with verifiability/reliable sources, no original research, neutral point of view, What Wikipedia Is Not, and copyright requirements, then let them through the door.
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted! Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:21:21 -0500
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@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.
GTB
Fixing up the home? Live Search can help
http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&loca...
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l