Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Many moons ago, I wrote the beginnings of an article for each one of the Dynasties of Ancient Egypt. I'll admit that they weren't great articles; I threw most of them together in hope that someone who actually knew something about the subject would improve on them. Because I knew I did not own them. So I sent them on their way in the world, and never looked back.
So tonight, surprised that two of them were on my watch list, I had a look. And now I knew how Sanger felt: both had degraded visibly in quality. I don't mean that some odd opinions or interpretations were inserted, but that they had become almost unreadable. I cleaned them up, left unavoidably critical remarks in the comment fields -- then stopped because I was about to start flaming the previous editor, who, I had to admit, was doing the best that she/he could do.
Worse was, the previous editor was improving on what she/he had found.
Knowing that I have to watch even more articles to keep them minimally useful does not encourage me to write any more. And I can think of several hundred articles, all of which are notable or worth an entry, Wikipedia needs.
Technocrati tags: wikipedia, writing
The good news is, sometimes the opposite is true. A few stubs blossom into great articles.
Although I have to agree with Ben: it's hard not to think that there are wide stretches of Wikipedia that do not get the attention some parts do, and seem to resist efforts to improve them.
Links to this post: