From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] On Completeness and Restrictiveness (was Re: GNAADeleted!) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:58:37 -0500
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.
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.
Clearly, they're not direct opposites, and I hope I didn't come across as saying they were. However, if one raises the quality bar, more things get left out, and if one includes certain material, the bar will necessarily go down. It's in that give-and-take that the conflict arises.
GTB
_________________________________________________________________ All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial! http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?href=http://clk...