WP:LEAD seems to be giving me some cause for concern.
The guideline is not completely horrible by any means, but it doesn't
seem to be improving.
My concerns are:
- the article is completely unreferenced
- there's a lot of simple reverts going on to apparently well meaning
edits on grounds of 'lack of consensus'
- the people reverting are defining consensus
- taking it to the talk page doesn't seem to help much
- they are trying to define the guideline independently from usage
both elsewhere as well as within the wikipedia (I would have thought
that guidelines for writing encyclopedia article introduction/leads
would exist elsewhere, today a reference to one was added, but it
lasted only a few hours and then was removed for 'lack of consensus')
- given the lack of references, the editors involved seem to be
defining the relative importance of things without reference to
anything at all (not even the core values of the wikipedia as far as I
can see)
I don't know, perhaps I'm making mountains out of molehills, as I say,
it's not a completely horrible article, and if you read it quickly it
sounds very reasonable, but less so when you read it very carefully,
it's more the activity surrounding it.
--
-Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly
imperfect world things would be a lot better.