Well... that does happen. It's basically WP:OWNership. I find that
ownership usually, but not always, stops an article reaching its
maximum quality and/or coverage.
But ownership doesn't seem to dominate the wikipedia. And sometimes if
the owner really is really good then the article can end up just fine.
On 16/02/2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Carl Beckhorn wrote:
Regardless of the history, Sanger does have a
viewpoint that would be
worth reading even if the author were anonymous. In particular, the
following claim is quite accurate to my experience:
Over the long term, the quality of a given Wikipedia article will do a
random walk around the highest level of quality permitted by the most
persistent and aggressive people who follow an article.
It is a nice use of rhetoric, but accurate? NOWAI!
Let me paraphrase it in a way that will make the logical flaws
more apparent.
In that sentence there are buried assumptions as follows:
1. There are people on wikipedia who will not permit
quality.
2. People who won't permit quality are aggressive.
3. There is a clear unambiguous metric for quality.
4. Aggressive people who won't permit quality will
follow an article.
5. Over the long term, the dynamics of wikipedias
practices will not prevent editors who will not
allow quality on wikipedia from dragging it down
to the level that they aggressively and persistently
insist on bringing it down to. There are no working
heuristics to allow it to transcend that attractor.
*Understanding* the logical flaws of those 5 statements
is left to the student.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
-Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly
imperfect world would be much better.