----- Original Message ----- From: "David Gerard" <dger...@gmail.com> > The answer is probably that we're not finished yet and need more > participation from people interested in writing encyclopedically in > the area.
> Basically, the answer is interested contributors bothering to put in > the effort, same as any other area. Hard work over the course of > years, as usual. I would have bought the 'not finished yet' argument 5 years ago. Perhaps even 3 years ago. But now? Every article in my area of expertise has stagnated. The only changes are vandalism followed by reverts from administrators who sometimes don't understand what they are reverting to, and who let other sorts of vandalism creep in. My benchmark is this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence which I rewrote 3 years ago and has since degenerated into a mess. See e.g. the 'Dharmic Middle way view' section towards the end which is incoherent and strange, immediately followed by the 'formal languages' section which clearly belongs in another article. You really need people with some sense of the subject to edit an article like this. Perhaps credentials are not the answer. All I am saying is that there is a serious and growing problem and that someone needs to recognise it for what it is. Peter _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
