[WikiEN-l] Is Wikipedia dying?

[Surreptitiousness]

Ken Arromdee wrote:
> Perhaps I should write an essay SODONTFIXIT about why "so fix it" is a bad
> idea.  For one thing, most people pointing to errors don't claim that
> Wikipedia is bad because it contains one particular error.  Rather, they
> claim that that error is representative of other errors (which they may
> not even be able to find, let alone fix).  Sometimes, they may even be using
> the error to point to a systematic problem; obviously fixing the single error
> won't fix the systematic problem.
>
> It also leads to some problems we're already familiar with with BLPs, such as
> having to constantly watch the article for the rest of your life to make sure
> the fix stays.
>
> Also, learning how to edit articles without being reverted can take an
> incredible amount of time and bureaucracy-navigating if the user is unlucky
> enough to have picked articles that people are watching.  (Can you describe
> the conflict of interest rules without looking them up?  What about
> notability?  And how can a new person defend against rules lawyers anyway?)
>   

Looks to me like you might have the wrong end of the stick somewhere.  
Although I'm baffled as to how you fix a systemic problem without 
tackling it head on.  But then perhaps I see the value in a "lead by 
example and encouragement" approach and you don't. Regardless of whether 
an error is just an error or also a representation of something, it 
still needs fixing. So fix it.  There's an argument that deliberately 
leaving an error so that you can make waves about it is disruptive to 
the encyclopedia. Sometimes I think it has legs. I also hadn't realised 
the idea of BLP was to constantly watch the article to make sure the 
"fix" stays.  I always thought that a fix was more like a hack, and 
eventually someone would come up with a better hack. So I don't watch 
BLP's like a hawk.  I instead do the best I can, relying on the fact 
that if everyone does the best they can, it will all work out.  I kind 
of think of Wikipedia as like an internal combustion engine. When it 
starts over-heating we try air-cooling, until we work out water-cooling 
works better, and so on and so forth. And I hadn't realised Wikipedia 
was a game where we need to work out how to avoid being reverted.  Being 
reverted is an important pasrt of teh system.  It makes it clear that 
you haven't got consensus, so you'd better work to get a consensus.  As 
to reading the rules, don't worry, you don't have to. Even when 
confronted with a rules lawyer.  The fastest way to beat a rules lawyer 
is to point out their mistake, check with a couple of other people and 
carry on as normal.  When you argue with a rules lawyer, you legitimise 
their behaviour. That's why we get so many kicking about, because they 
are encouraged by the response they get. Or I may be wrong.  Who knows. 
Time will tell.