Carcharoth wrote: > Actually, I think people end up picking the articles they are most > interested in, or which have the most potential. The vast majority or > article languish unless people systematically work through them. As an > example, look at how successful the plan to bring all the WP:CORE > biography articles up to high (maybe even FA) standards has been (not > very). > > I think that depends upon your standards. From my perspective, when you consider we're staffed by a bunch of volunteers who usually have to learn about the subject before they can write about it, we ain't doing bad. I think what a lot of frustration and drama on Wikipedia boils down to is that a lot of people think we're very near, or that we ought to be very near being a finished product. Realistically, I think we're really only approaching the end of the middle of the initial stage. By which I mean the initial stage is to get as much written about as much as we can as possible. The trouble is, we have other people who think we're at the end of the end stage, which I tend to think is about fifty years away if we are lucky. SO I guess it depends on your timescale. I tend to find I interact better with people playing the long game. Even when we disagree, we don't fight about it, because what would be the point. Short game players are a nightmare though. Everything has to be done now! Someone might be watching now! At the end of the day we're a work in progress, and while it is great that the world wants to take us seriously, and it is important that we take ourselves seriously, we have to keep getting across the message that we are a work in progress, and our articles should never be used as a definitive source, but rather a pointer to a better understanding. Or something.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
