[WikiEN-l] Re: Resolving content disputes

Wed Oct 29 02:53:41 UTC 2003

James Duffy wrote:
> major historical facts, etc but except in extreme cases we need to
> keep biographies readable, not turn them into theses simply because
> we don't have a paper usgae limit. Saying 'lets get everything we
> can in because we can' isn't encyclop?dic, it is amateurish.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that.  Erik in particular has been
a big proponent of breaking down articles into more manageable sizes
when they grow too big.

That doesn't seem to be the issue in this particular case, though --
the article isn't that long, indeed for such a major figure in history
it clearly isn't nearly long enough.

> And in depth NPOV is not wikipedia's strong point given that it does
> not go through independent assessment but is produced in a
> free-for-all writing spree.

I'd say that in-depth NPOV is precisely our strong point -- we do it
better than anyone else ever has.

> (Often that 
> free-for-all approach produces superb stuff. All too often it doesn't, as 
> the embarrassing article on Mother Teresa, which not a single solitary 
> person hasn recommended in preference to a better, more NPOV version by 
> Adam Carr, is the embodiment of, showing what happens when an article goes 
> seriously, embarrassingly and indeed almost comically wrong.)

If not a single solitary person prefers the current version to that of
Adam Carr, then why doesn't someone just cut and paste and replace it?

I suspect the answer is that there is a single solitary person (at
least) who does prefer the current article, or who would like to see
them merged, is that right?

(I ask seriously, becuase I haven't read the Adam Carr version.)

Be Bold.

--Jimbo