[WikiEN-l] assessing

[Surreptitiousness]

Carcharoth wrote:
> Actually, I think people end up picking the articles they are most
> interested in, or which have the most potential. The vast majority or
> article languish unless people systematically work through them. As an
> example, look at how successful the plan to bring all the WP:CORE
> biography articles up to high (maybe even FA) standards has been (not
> very).
>
>   
I think that depends upon your standards.  From my perspective, when you 
consider we're staffed by a bunch of volunteers who usually have to 
learn about the subject before they can write about it, we ain't doing 
bad. I think what a lot of frustration and drama on Wikipedia boils down 
to is that a lot of people think we're very near, or that we ought to be 
very near being a finished product.  Realistically, I think we're really 
only approaching the end of the middle of the initial stage. By which I 
mean the initial stage is to get as much written about as much as we can 
as possible.  The trouble is, we have other people who think we're at 
the end of the end stage, which I tend to think is about fifty years 
away if we are lucky. SO I guess it depends on your timescale.  I tend 
to find I interact better with people playing the long game.  Even when 
we disagree, we don't fight about it, because what would be the point.  
Short game players are a nightmare though. Everything has to be done 
now! Someone might be watching now! At the end of the day we're a work 
in progress, and while it is great that the world wants to take us 
seriously, and it is important that we take ourselves seriously, we have 
to keep getting across the message that we are a work in progress, and 
our articles should never be used as a definitive source, but rather a 
pointer to a better understanding. Or something.