I re-copy edited it. It was rescued in a rush, and improved in a rush. The next step is to collate with the original article., and then to look for good additional material.
Some of the above discussions imply much too high a standard, both for what should be in Wikipedia and for what the quality of the content in Wikipedia should be. We are not producing a definitive scholarly resource, nor are our basic methods adapted to doing so--scholarship requires critical evaluation and editorial control, two things we are unable to provide. What we can provide is a rough-and-ready general reference work, and our strength is the potential for of a large group of amateurs to be extremely comprehensive , and include a wider range of material than any conventional method of work has ever provided. It can neither make true judgments of importance, nor will it be guaranteed accurate--those who want to read such have the full range of conventional sources at their disposal, and another goal of the free scholarship movement --different from ours-- is to make these more widely available. Those who want to write a this level need to write in the more conventional way, a way that requires qualified researchers with access to the full range of relevant sources, and trained editors with professional standards. The goal for BLPs --or any other topic--cannot be the complete avoidance of error, for not even the most professional of resources have the ability to do that. Not even the most carefully edited publications have succeeded in being free from hoaxes and libel. The goal is to be as reasonably correct as possible, to remove obvious error when pointed out to us, and have working policies that will exclude the worst blunders and discourage the use for libel, propaganda, and promotion. The only way to avoid these entirely is to include nothing at all about anything involving anyone living or any living writer-- some of our worst BLP problems involve our comments on living authors. The easiest thing is to write nothing. The second easiest to is eliminate material without thinking. The third easiest, is a little different, for it is to write without thinking. We can not exclude the thoughtless from working here, either to make foolish positive contributions or foolish negative edits, and only the most reckless of all or the most obviously biased can actually be rejected. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > The Cunctator wrote: >> Sometimes I don't understand people. Carcharoth goes to the trouble of >> finding his birth date, learning he received the Brazilian Order of Merit, >> and lists out some copy errors, but then doesn't fix the page? >> >> I mean, what's the point? >> > Um, maybe email is OK in the working environment, but spending time > editing WP not so? Just a thought. You seem a little impatient with > someone who is not in your time zone. > > 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 > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l