[WikiEN-l] semi-new essay

[Charles Matthews]

"David Goodman" wrote

> Doing it part by part is certainly OK, as long as it gets done;,
> though I wouldn't oppose an effort to mark such text if a bot could do
> it.  

It is standard to have a template on the page noting EB1911 text, or whatever. Of course the discussion in the essay about follow-up is aimed at getting a practical implementation and logging of how this updating is going. It is always the worst 10% that should be in our sights.

> The attitude I really protest against is when people defend the
> keeping of  superseded sources instead of modern ones, even when good
> ones  are proposed, or naively use such sources to add to existing
> articles. I regard the start of a new article by carrying over old EB
> text   just like I would from a web home page that happened to be
> PD--the text is equally unlikely to be suitable for an encyclopedia.

I think you mean for referencing, in the first point there. Indeed, there seems not to be a clear idea of when to strip out obsolescent sources. 

But I would argue that taking in public domain text and making it into useful reference material is very much a business Wikipedia should be in. We have the right technology, the personnel, and the economics of it is also right. I mean that the initial editorial work, for someone who knows how to do it, comes in at only around 10% of writing from scratch. (And the percentage would be lower for obscure topics, which is where we are heading.) It is essentially pushing on an open door, and that needs some recognition. Various things seem to be shifting in the community vibe, and have been for 18 months. I hope we stick to our model of filtering out poor material gradually, because it has served surprisingly well.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam