[WikiEN-l] let's be honest then

[Daniel R. Tobias]

On 31 Mar 2007 at 23:20, "Matthew Brown" <morven at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

...and a lot less good, percentage-wise, than it seems to someone who 
spends a lot of time reading featured articles.  Using the "Random 
article" link repeatedly tends to result in unexceptional mediocrity; 
neither anything scandalously bad nor brilliantly good.

(When I tried it just now, one of the articles I got was [[List of 
asteroids/83201-83300]], which happens to include some of those that 
were discovered on September 11, 2001.  Interesting.  Must be a 
conspiracy!)

> 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.

Don't just do something... stand there!


-- 
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/