Surreptitiousness wrote: > 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. I'd put it this way: the business of "flagged revisions" indicates a feeling that (for a physical book) would be that we have a "first draft", and should proceed editorially rather than magpie-fashion.
>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. > That's OK as a caveat, but I think Carcharoth's point is also valid: that the "working over" of parts of the encyclopedia doesn't happen for top-down reason, necessarily. While it is essential for "adding value" that it should happen, even if only patchily. This has always implied people with a serious interest in the actual content ... doesn't imply that the formal review mechanisms should dominate. Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
