Charles Matthews wrote: > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > >> 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. >> >> > It would be rash to say you couldn't find any examples where this is > true - there is a large selection of articles. It might be a fair model > for the article about, for example, a controversial Governor of Alaska > who didn't get chosen as a candidate for Vice-President. But you could > click Random Article for a little while before you came up with an > article to which this argument really would apply. > I disagree that even Mrs. Palins article will fulfill the claim of my 5th paraphrase.
Long term, (think 5 years down the line, or even say twice the current age of wikipedia itself) those little problems will be transcended. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
