Re: How to write about things that were once notable?

On 7 February 2013 02:23, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[email protected]> wrote:

> It is actually worse than that. Wikipedias rules taken as a whole
> used to be about enabling editors to work, even in areas of
> dispute. I seriously doubt that is a tenable defense of the
> rules as enforced these days.

My general reaction to doleful comments about "the state of the wiki"
is to run them past some tests: do they match serious history (in
particular that There Was No Golden Age)? Are they proportionate, or
do they focus on some smallish segment of content (I have no
difficulty at all in getting on with editing)? Do they focus on the
readers' view of WP, or are they grumbling on behalf of writers (note
that readers seem pleased with what we do)? Are they eventualist
enough?

I would say that the old-school insider view of editing as represented
in "How Wikipedia Works", mostly written five years ago, still has a
lot to offer. But what seems to be the case that cutting corners on
the social side and relying more on technology (in general terms) has
been the trend thereafter. I would guess that the proportion of
contentious articles on WP has been falling. I have announced my view
that we are onto the "third draft" now ("first draft" having been done
by 2008). Surely some things have changed.

Charles

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l