David Gerard wrote:
> It's not clear what "much better" means for en:wp. "Better" is
> attainable, but what would being notably better than we are look like?
>
> (I think the last big changes were (a) useful as a general
> encyclopedia, which we weren't five years ago except in limited areas;
> (ii) a culture of references, which was a b*gg*r to get started. By
> the way, I created the {{unref}} template.)
>
It's all arguable, which is why what Andrew Dalby was saying wasn't a
stupid opinion (unlike some I could mention). We could turn all the
redlinks blue on 1000 lists, or add 10000 new images to articles, or
upgrade 50000 two-line stubs to four paras, and (arguably) the people
looking up [[Cheryl Cole]] would see no real difference.
I think he's wrong, because the switching on of flagged doodads should
mean that the vandal edit mentioned on the programme (an IP number had
changed the death date at [[Christopher R. W. Nevinson]] early in
November) would have been caught. He's also wrong because there's just
one team updating the site, not one team for popular culture and another
one for "unpopular culture"; useful in your general sense is created by
synergy and that we do have.
Charles
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
