Funny, this page strikes me as a gratuitous self-congralulatory one. Not to mention opinionated-who can tell the tell articulateness and intelligence of contributors- to me an entirely subjective judgment.
It behooves me to mention the large amount of pages that are cut and pasted from other free domain sources that are merely refactored at best but rarely updated. I would not count these at all, in the so-called unprecedented growth of pages here. Refactoring is neither an indication of intelligence or articulateness. This reminds me of the days when companies actually gave intelligence tests to potential employees to weed out people too "bright" for a monotonous routine jobs. BTW, this is no longer legal. If this content is moved to a linked talk or opinion page, I will consider that proof of my point, and worse.
At present, many wiki articles are of high enough quality to be the basis of a reviewed encyclopedia.
Given enough time, many many more will follow.---- I said:
"If this content is moved to a linked talk or opinion page, I will consider that proof of my point, and worse."
You did exactly what I feared and have surely proved my point to me. And as the ultimate detector of bias and defender of non-bias, I am more than disappointed in your action.. It appears you don't care, enough to either have read my whole statemnt or, if you did consider this remark I just quoted, you did not have the courtesy to explain why my remarks are opinion, while the page I originally added them to is fact. Such is life.
Well, basically, you're confused, and many of us no doubt don't want to take the time to try to unconfuse you, particularly because you sound like you're the sort of person, or in a sort of mood, or whatever, such that you would be very hard to unconfuse. Anyway, there is a basic confusion you seem to be laboring under: you think that why Wikipedia is so great is intended to be, and will be understood by most people to be, a statement of fact rather than opinion. This is false. In fact, it is so obviously false that that's probably why no one wanted to take the trouble to point it out to you. In this case, the page isn't in the encyclopedia; it's about the encyclopedia. So why should you expect it to be fact-stating (as encyclopedia articles are) rather than opinion-stating (as they are not)? You fail to understand that the purpose of why Wikipedia is so great is, essentially, PR; like much PR, a lot of it is stated with tongue in cheek and with cheery optimism. And there's nothing wrong with that, and if you think there is, you're wrong. :-) This also explains why it has the self-congratulatory tone it has, but it also explains why it isn't gratutiously self-congratulatory. It serves its purpose admirably (if I may say so myself).
As to your point,
- It behooves me to mention the large amount of pages that are cut and pasted from other free domain sources that are merely refactored at best but rarely updated. I would not count these at all, in the so-called unprecedented growth of pages here.
I find this confusing. Why not include them in the growth of pages? They're part of Wikipedia, aren't they? We aren't embarrassed by those pages. Do you think we should be? We're glad they're there. We wish more people would add such pages.
It seems to me you're taking all this much more seriously than we do. Consequently, your reaction seems strangely out of place. --LMS
I think the best way to make complaints would be to make a second opinion metapage, Why Wikipedia is not so great.
I want to thank you for taking your valuable time in "unconfusing" me, and alienating me, by making it clear that "we" doesn't include me. It is clear is that I don't fit in with all these brilliant people, and I thank you for clarifying this and puttimg me in my place. Strange how someone thought many of my pages are BrilliantProse. He/she must be confused too. Maybe you can help this person out too.
You're welcome. So now, presumably, you understand the intended function of the page you were complaining about. I'm glad. I'm sorry you're alienated; but you alienated me, too. Seriously, perhaps I shouldn't have presumed to speak for anyone else on Wikipedia, but certainly I could speak for the many people who have uploaded public domain content to Wikipedia. Surely they think that material is valuable. Anyway, indeed since I can't really speak for everyone else on Wikipedia, how could I alienate you? (Can't one be alienated only by a group or, metaphorically, by some other huge entity, like The Universe?) In short: lighten up. --LMS---- The expression that got me was: "It seems to me you're taking all this much more seriously than "we" do." We who-the insiders? the important people? Here you are speaking for others as well as yourself, and created a divsion between me and a group of others you are a member of. I think you know who is writing this. I will leave this discussion with "No Further Comment," but with the caveat that silence is not aquiescence.
Well, in the future, I'll make an effort to speak only for myself, then. Anyway, who was asking you to acquiesce? Why should anyone care whether you, I, or anyone does or does not acquiesce? This is a wiki! :-) You can still create that why Wikipedia is not so great page, y'know. --LMS---- Watch my lips!!! "NO FURTHER COMMENT" but with the caveat that silence is not acquiessence. Translation: I will no longer take part in this conversation, but that does not mean I agree with you.. And :
"You can still create that why Wikipedia is not so great page, y'know."
But, Your "we" already did it. Finally, you said:
"This is a wiki!" On the contrary you and others are trying to make what "was" a Wiki into an encylcopedia.
A wiki is a community project. The purpose to which the software can be put is wide open. A wiki can be an encyclopedia, eh?
By the way, I never interpret silence as agreement. --LMS
P.S. OK, rarely. :-)