On 05/15/2010 06:22 AM, Klaus Graf wrote: > So there we are: OA's biggest canard and nemesis, being daily, > cumulatively, canonized and amplified by Wikipedia, riding the recursive > tide of its own notability and notoriety (as an infectious virus, > cheerfully propagated by the denizens of Wikipedia). > > I expect that this posting will elicit stout defenses by Wiki-Warriors, [...] >
Thanks for sharing this, Klaus. It was interesting to read. I certainly enjoyed the spirited prose, and as a fiend for good names, I expect that I'd fully agree with the diagnosis of the root problem that brought forth such a lovely rant. But at the end, I still have a, "Yeah, so?" reaction. I feel like the essence of the complaint is that contrary to what the authors want, other people persist in acting as they see fit. I have some sympathy, as most people signally fail to do what I want, too. But I don't see any obvious solutions. Heck, I'd love it if our articles were based on pure, uncut Objective Truth, with no need to futz around with reliable sources and NPOV. Everybody would. But that stuff's expensive, and the only way I know to get that is by paying a horde of academics to do their thing. And even with all of them beavering away, we only get a trickle of the stuff, not the torrent we need to fill an encyclopedia. Of course, if somebody, those folks included, think they can build a better encyclopedia, I'd encourage them to try. And I don't mean that in a snotty way; it would be useful to Wikipedia to have some serious competition. Just this week at work I was reviewing a competitor's new product, and it was both scary and thrilling, prodding us toward better work. It would be great for Wikipedia, and especially great for humanity, if somebody were actually nipping at our heels. William _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
