Sarah and her love for the Lizard People Fighter Options

[EricBarbour]

Kato already pointed it out previously, but I can't help commenting further:

If you ever need proof of SV's insanity, you need look no further than her endless
messing with the David Icke article. See for yourself.

According to Wikichecker, she has edited it 691 times....... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

Probably she was first attracted to it by the (misinformed) idea that Icke's reptile
aliens were a coded form of saying "Jew". Even though Icke himself has disclaimed
any such belief, SV keeps hacking away at his BLP, in an apparently endless campaign
to make Icke look like a nut. (Which is actually a good thing, if you think Icke is a nut,
because most of the other editors of the Icke article, such as Sir Richardson (T-C-L-K-R-D) ,
have spent the last few years trying to make Icke look like a hero. So, endless editwar!)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[gomi]

This article is another example of Wikipedia's utter lack of scholarship. In general, the nuttier and less well regarded someone is, the shorter their biographical sketch, not longer. This article commits the sin of inadvertently glorifying its subject through the sheer length of the article. Separately, ans equally common on Wikipedia, is the crime of calling someone an "Anti-Semite" in the negative (its first use is in the lead, as "[Icke] strongly denies he is an Anti-Semite"). This is a "when did you stop beating your wife" style of argument completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

However, the guy is clearly a nutter, so I have a hard time getting worked up over it. It seems to keep Slimmy out of the bars and off the streetcorners at night, so on balance it might be a good thing.

[everyking]

This article is another example of Wikipedia's utter lack of scholarship. In general, the nuttier and less well regarded someone is, the shorter their biographical sketch, not longer. This article commits the sin of inadvertently glorifying its subject through the sheer length of the article.

It would only appear that way if you were locked into the concept of paper encyclopedias that assign valuable space based on the importance of the subject. Wikipedia's coverage of a subject should be just as extensive as its treatment in reliable sources will permit, without regard for its notability relative to some other subject.

[Somey]

Wikipedia's coverage of a subject should be just as extensive as its treatment in reliable sources will permit, without regard for its notability relative to some other subject.

You're missing the point, EK - Gomi is talking about lack of scholarship. Reliable sources don't "permit" anything - you either emphasize some subjects over others by article length, number of illustrations, etc., or you don't. Obviously on Wikipedia you do, but all that does is make WP articles a collection of "fact dumps."

The point of exercising editorial restraint is that it allows you to be taken more seriously as a scholarly work, because it shows that you're capable of making sound editorial decisions, as opposed to building a collection of fact (or in many cases, non-fact) dumps. If you simply don't care about scholarship, or being taken seriously as such, then you do what Wikipedia does.

[everyking]

You're missing the point, EK - Gomi is talking about lack of scholarship. Reliable sources don't "permit" anything - you either emphasize some subjects over others by article length, number of illustrations, etc., or you don't. Obviously on Wikipedia you do, but all that does is make WP articles a collection of "fact dumps."

The point of exercising editorial restraint is that it allows you to be taken more seriously as a scholarly work, because it shows that you're capable of making sound editorial decisions, as opposed to building a collection of fact (or in many cases, non-fact) dumps. If you simply don't care about scholarship, or being taken seriously as such, then you do what Wikipedia does.

In fact such an editorial decision would have no purpose in the context of a paperless encyclopedia--it would eliminate useful content for no benefit. This is just "but we've always done it that way" thinking. Whether or not something is a "fact dump" depends on the way the information is structured and presented, not on the amount of information provided.

[gomi]

You're missing the point, EK - Gomi is talking about lack of scholarship. Reliable sources don't "permit" anything - you either emphasize some subjects over others by article length, number of illustrations, etc., or you don't. Obviously on Wikipedia you do, but all that does is make WP articles a collection of "fact dumps."

The point of exercising editorial restraint is that it allows you to be taken more seriously as a scholarly work, because it shows that you're capable of making sound editorial decisions, as opposed to building a collection of fact (or in many cases, non-fact) dumps. If you simply don't care about scholarship, or being taken seriously as such, then you do what Wikipedia does.

In fact such an editorial decision would have no purpose in the context of a paperless encyclopedia--it would eliminate useful content for no benefit. This is just "but we've always done it that way" thinking. Whether or not something is a "fact dump" depends on the way the information is structured and presented, not on the amount of information provided.

T.S. Eliot notably wondered "Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"

Your uncritical mind has fixated on the opinion that centuries of scholarly process can (and should) be swept away by technology. Yet the technology is only a tool, it doesn't really change the underlying processes of analysing, synthesizing, and understanding. When I want to be understood, I write clearly, briefly (not my strong suit), and simply, emphasizing key themes and leaving the details aside. When writing (e.g.) a legal contract where I want to hide a particularly onerous clause, the best place to do so is buried in several paragraphs of boilerplate, and worded either so confusingly or so innocuously that the other side never really sees it.

So it is with Wikipedia, whether as a deliberate strategy or as a side-effect of the presence of under-intelligent and under-educated goons such as yourself. When a topic is shown to be complex, controversial, or otherwise difficult, the best scholarly approach is to simplify, simplify, simplify. After all, there are all of those references and citations to look into if someone wants details and complexity. But Wikipedia goes the other direction, clouding these topics with layer upon layer of weasel-wording, superfluous detail, innuendo, and inappropriate emphasis.

Wikipedia is like a precocious grade-school child's book report on Shakespeare: full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing.

[Milton Roe]

So it is with Wikipedia, whether as a deliberate strategy or as a side-effect of the presence of under-intelligent and under-educated goons such as yourself. When a topic is shown to be complex, controversial, or otherwise difficult, the best scholarly approach is to simplify, simplify, simplify.

Or, simplify. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Your TS Elliot quote was exactly what I was looking for. The Thoreau quote has always been deliciously self-mocking (at least to me).

Of course, I agree with the rest of what you said. Right on.