[Wikipedia-l] RE: Current events

[Pedro M.V.]

Also, it´s a personal decission say : I know about this and about that. What is more important for wikipedia ??.  Now I have clear what to do first ;)

Regards.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net>
To: <wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] RE: Current events


> Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> 
> > At 08:25 PM 3/16/03 +0100, Pedro wrote:
> >
> >> I think this would be an attention ( 
> >> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention) 
> >> principle : first the nowadays articles ( topics in the news).
> >>
> >> For me, the attention principles would be :
> >>
> >> 1. General before particular ( specific ).
> >> 2. In the news topics before another ones ( this is over the 1st. 
> >> principle, if necessary).
> >
> >
> > As a practical matter, lots of people are already doing this, but the 
> > other significant
> > factor is that people will write about what they know and care about. 
> > Once in a while
> > someone like me will take an hour to do online research for a quick 
> > article on
> > something in the news (for example, I did a quick bio of the VP of 
> > Venezuela when
> > he was briefly acting president), but I'm not suddenly an expert on 
> > the history or
> > geography of Iraq.
> >
> > The beauty of Wikipedia is that it has room for people to follow lots 
> > of different
> > interests, and sometimes that means that when something hits the news, 
> > the
> > article is already there, written by someone who cared about that 
> > enough to
> > write about it instead of about whatever was in the headlines that week. 
> 
> I support the sentiments in Vicki's observation.  If most of us ran our 
> personal lives in the way we choose what to edit on Wikipedia we would 
> all be in serious trouble.  "Always leave something undone" is a 
> principle that works well in Wikipedia but not in one's personal life. 
>  I've consistently believed that there was a fractal component to 
> Wikipedia participation where all these seemingly random contributions 
> when viewed as a whole show evidence of some unifying pattern.
> 
> In an ideal world where our human resources are unlimited I would 
> support Sheldon's proposal, but in our real world my support must 
> remanin philosophical.  Each Wikipedia project competes with the others 
> (including those in other languages) for human resources.  Whenever that 
> happens each of us must make a decision about the allocation of the 
> fixed number of hours that we have available.  This can be easy when we 
> know nothing about the language of a new Wikipedia, or difficult when a 
> new project relates significantly to our personal interests.  From my 
> own perspective, I can only wish that Sheldon's new little Mendelbrot of 
> current events will some day find the appropriate connection with the 
> central structure.
> 
> Eclecticology
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>