[WikiEN-l] And you thought Pokémon was trivial...

Sat Jun 24 01:51:38 UTC 2006

On 6/24/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> As I've argued before when this sort of suggestion has come up, we can't
>  let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Articles lacking sources
> aren't unacceptable, IMO, they're simply _unfinished_. They'd need to be
> properly verified before they were accepted for any sort of polished
> compilation, sure, but Wikipedia as a whole is not that compilation. It
> is the raw materials for one.

This is where the divide seems to hit. Those who work in the
Foundation Office, and receive complaints from the outside world, tend
to have a harsher view of things, arguing that all unsourced
statements about living people, for instance, should be immediately
removed. Those who do a lot of editing without hearing from the
outside world tend to find this position untenable and impractical.
Worse, they (we?) tend to just ignore it, since the number of people
advocating it is tiny, and they haven't really made much significant
noise about it yet.

I'm yet to see any meaningful common ground found between these
positions, but I'm optimistic we can find a solution.

Steve