[WikiEN-l] Is Wikipedia dying?

[Surreptitiousness]

Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009, Surreptitiousness wrote:
>   
>> Regardless of whether
>> an error is just an error or also a representation of something, it
>> still needs fixing. So fix it.
>>     
>
> But since the complaint isn't just "Wikipedia has one error", fixing the error
> doesn't actually resolve the complaint.  it only resolves the most visible
> sign of the complaint, without resolving the underlying problem that's
> really what's being complained about.
>   
I had thought the argument had moved on and I was responding to a point 
you had made, but if you want to drag it back to the initial subject, 
I'll just trot out the old maxim about how Rome wasn't built in a day.  
You can't build a brick wall in one go, you start with one brick and a 
bit of muck. Unless you're worried about footings, of course... So, how 
do you fix the underlying problems?  You roll your sleeves up and fix 
them.  Sofixit. The underlying problem is actually that Wikipedia 
suffers from some sort of bias towards pop culture. Now where I sit, the 
people who make this complaint are the sort of people who could actually 
correct that bias, so I'm always thinking to myself, "sofixit". But 
that's me.

>> I also hadn't realised
>> the idea of BLP was to constantly watch the article to make sure the
>> "fix" stays.
>>     
>
> It's not the idea of BLP, it's a problem related to BLP.  If you tell someone
> with a bad BLP to fix the article themselves, they have to watch it for the
> rest of their life to make sure it stays fixed.  That's one reason why the
> answer to a BLP problem is *not* "fix it yourself".
>   
Bloody hell.  I'll have to re-read BLP, I hadn't realised we had editors 
glued to the screen being drip-fed so they could constantly refresh 
their watchlist.  I seriously doubt that the point or even a symptom of 
BLP is that someone has to watch a page until they die.  I think there's 
a problem here though, since I've already stated I don't believe 
articles are ever fixed, and you do.
>   
>> 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.
>>     
>
> An outside who just tries to correct an error in a Wikipedia article and
> runs into a rules lawyer is not going to know enough to be able to point out
> their mistake.  Despite claims otherwise, Wikipedia is a bureaucracy.
> Beating the rules lawyer is *hard*.  It takes *experience*.  You can't just
> casually do it.
>   
That's why you should always help out where you can by pointing out to 
people they shouldn't bite newcomers. But heck, I managed to outwit 
rules lawyers in my first week.  It can be done. I used to create stubs 
without permission! Imagine that! Mind, it might not be a bad idea to 
hardcode IAR onto every page, to undercut the idea that rules lawyers 
actually have a point.