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.
Oh, I do think Wikipedia is healthier with sourcing. But I think you're
right -- I identify more with completeness than for restrictiveness. I think
the idea that quality and completeness have to be oppositional is a false
dilemma. I do believe that the current trend of mega-articles does grossly
exacerbate that conflict.