[WikiEN-l] assessing

[Charles Matthews]

Surreptitiousness wrote:
>  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.  
I'd put it this way: the business of "flagged revisions" indicates a 
feeling that (for a physical book) would be that we have a "first 
draft", and should proceed editorially rather than magpie-fashion.

 >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.
>   
That's OK as a caveat, but I think Carcharoth's point is also valid: 
that the "working over" of parts of the encyclopedia doesn't happen for 
top-down reason, necessarily. While it is essential for "adding value" 
that it should happen, even if only patchily. This has always implied 
people with a serious interest in the actual content ... doesn't imply 
that the formal review mechanisms should dominate.

Charles