Think of it this way...
Wikipedia is like a party. For a successful party you need lots of people.
However, does that mean you'll indiscriminantly let people through the door?
Like the people prone to violence? The convicted sex offenders? President
Bush? You may want a lot of people, but the party's only good if it's the
kind of people you'd like to have at a party.
Wikipedia is proving to be a successful party with 1.5 million articles.
However, the problem is that there were little standards at the beginning
for who was let through the door. Now that we've recognized the problem,
what articles can enter the big party of Wikipedia should be a bit more
restrictive.
However, as I see it, as long as articles comply with verifiability/reliable
sources, no original research, neutral point of view, What Wikipedia Is Not,
and copyright requirements, then let them through the door.
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
From: "The Cunctator"
<cunctator(a)gmail.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:21:21 -0500
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator(a)gmail.com>
> > >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> > >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
> > >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
> > >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:32:21 -0500
> > >
I'd just like to remind people that Wikipedia was doing quite well in the
Age Before Required Sourcing.
You may consider yourself a specialist "in well-sourced articles on
topics
for which such sources exist" but don't
tar me with that same brush.
You use the words "we" and "us" a bit too cavalierly, I think.
Wikipedia
is
healthiest when it allows any number of
motivations for contributors,
rather
than enforcing a Platonic model of the
perfect Wikipedian.
You're reading a bit more into my words than I ever intended, but I'll lay
off on the idealistic "we". I don't think Wikipedia is healthier without
sourcing, but I'll allow for disagreement there. What we're dealing with
is
a conflict of visions of what Wikipedia ought to be. Do we strive for
completeness and inclusiveness or for better sourcing and higher quality
coverage? I identify more with the drive for quality, and I'm comfortable
looking elsewhere for certain topics, which can't be covered in the way I
think Wikipedia should.
GTB
_________________________________________________________________
Fixing up the home? Live Search can help
http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&loc…
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l