[WikiEN-l] let's be honest then

[Matthew Brown]

On 3/31/07, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> So wikipedia is doomed to keep having its sordid downside? We're doomed
> to always be fighting a losing battle against libels and lies? We're
> doomed to go on consoling victims with empty words? And there's nothing
> we can do about it? No way we can make the system even a little better?
> It isn't even worth the attempt?
>
> I refuse to be that pessimistic or that cynical. The day I am, I will
> really quit.

Wikipedia cannot be perfect.  Wikipedia can get better.  IMO,
Wikipedia is a lot less bad, percentage-wise, than it seems to someone
who spends a lot of time trying to clean up biographical articles or
reading OTRS complaints.

I am fearful of the rush to 'do something' without the examination of
likely consequences.  I am pessimistic about more rules being the cure
for current rules being ignored.  I am cynical about the prospects for
success of any solution that starts with drastic over-reaction and
ignoring the reasons why Wikipedia is as successful as it is.

-Matt