[WikiEN-l] Linking Dates

[Charles Matthews]

Marc Riddell wrote:
>
> I still do
> not understand fully much of the decision-making process that goes into
> matters such as deciding on a specific format policy. But what I do see
> throughout the encyclopedia is an arbitrariness in form and structure that
> greatly detracts from the professionalism of the Project. A reader is coming
> to the encyclopedia looking for information on a particular subject. That
> information should be presented in a consistent, reliable, familiar form.
> This form becomes the "signature" of the encyclopedia. As the Wikipedia
> Project matures, it is important that the decision-making processes
> regarding such basic issues as its very form and structure mature as well.
>
>   
So you need to be talking to someone like [[User:Tony1]], an advocate of 
said type of "professionalism". But of course there is more to be said 
here.

Naturally since most editors are "amateurs", in all the senses (unpaid, 
doing it for the love of it, and people with an appreciation of the 
site), anything that happens to the Manual of Style ought to be 
compatible with retaining such amateurism (in a good sense). Note that 
very complex sets of rules for formatting do add a barrier to entry; as 
your example shows, it may not be so easy to appreciate the current 
state of the MoS as compatible with "you may edit right now".

In other words, and this has played out on the site, it is not true that 
the advocates of a "professional approach" have all the answers. It is 
rather easier to effect changes to the Manual, than to ensure that the 
consensus about what a Manual page should contain translates into a 
shared understanding across the whole community. In fact the assumption 
that it does would rest on either of two assumptions: people are paid 
and so have a direct stake in following an imposed "house style", or the 
community is small enough so that everyone can track the debates that 
will affect them.

Charles