>>I will agree only if Wikipedians agree not to bathe, brush their teeth, or launder their clothes for six months as well. You'll get the same result on your person as with Wikipedia.
-Fuzheado<<
I didn't propose no upkeep. I proposed not doing it with deletes. A change of detergent and toothpaste types doesn't bring about disaster.
>> A six month moratorium is ridiculous. Even a one week moratorium is ridiculous. Do you know how many garbage articles get created daily? Do you really want to keep around an article that says nothing but "Joey is gay"?
RickK<<
One edited to say "See [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]]" or whatever else is appropriate it is harmless and lets the creator clearly know that it didn't work.
Nobody will find it after the edit, unless it's us, later, looking for vandalism to deal with via a bulk delete.
"Jimmy Wales" <jwales(a)bomis.com> schrieb:
> There is no reason for a rule which says that all articles have to be
> either useful or deleted, which is what you're implying.
Well, I think that that is a very sensible rule. There is no reason to
have something that is useless.
> Take for example "Talossan language" which you listed on VfD.
> This article is a stub, and I guess you're saying that it should be
> either improved right away or deleted.
No. When he put it on VfD, it was a stub with information that on the
face on it seemed false, and probably it was.
> I think that's mistaken. The most important thing to remember is that
> if left there, it *doesn't hurt anything*.
Now that is where I disagree with you. I think it *does* hurt
> And since, as it turns
> out, this is a known topic that several other people have heard about,
> there's a fair change that someone will stumble on the article at some
> point and find it useful, even if it stays just the way it is.
Then again, there is also the chance that someone would have stumbled
upon it before it was changed, and have believed that there was a country
called the 'Kingdom of Talossa' with Talossan as its national language.
Maybe _that_ could be considered harmful, no?
The only thing that went wrong with Talossan language, in my opinion,
is that it is _still_ on Votes for Deletion, basically cluttering it,
although there is already a clear majority for keeping, and the reasons
that were there for deletion do no longer apply. The original act of
putting it there was completely justified.
Andre Engels
Could the people requesting a moratorium on deletions please go to
[[Wikipedia:Deletion log]] and tell me what percentage of the actual deletions
listed there they would consider harmful?
What on Earth is all the fuss about?
Evercat
--
Allan Crossman - http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
PGP keys - 0x06C4BCCA (new) || 0xCEC9FAE1 (compatible)
"Wikipedia is not paper, but it is also not a collection place
for trivia. It remains an encyclopedia, which remains that we do have
to
have some limits on what is and what is not interesting."
Here's how I interpret Jimbo's stance: "Wikipedia 1.0" (the eventual
edited version) will be an encyclopedia, but Wikipedia is not now
actually an encyclopedia. And to get to the eventual 1.0 version, it's
better to encourage contributors, even if that means that a lot of
non-encyclopedic content is added, because this kind of inclusionist
policy will encourage more encyclopedic content as well (by not pissing
people off by deleting things that they write).
I don't know if that's true, but I think his view on this is important,
and I'm tired of arguing about this (both here and on VfD), and I think
we need a firm policy. And I'm OK with this policy.
Alex
At 05:07 06/11/2003 -0800, Jimbo wrote:
>"Cory Hall" -- this one did get redirected to U. Cal Berkeley, which
>is absurd in my opinion. This is a well-known building, it may
>certainly have an article, even if the topic would not make it into
>1.0. When was it built? What function does it serve? Who was the
>architect? What famous things happened there? All legitimate stuff.
Absolutely. But perhaps when you consider that the content of that page was
nothing more than "Cory Hall is the Electrical Engineering building at the
University of California, Berkeley. It is across the street from Soda
Hall", and that the same content has been merged into the U Cal, Berk page,
the redirect doesn't seem so "absurd" any more.
Given that some mention of Cory Hall is needed in the UofC,B page whether
the Hall has its own article or not, the question is: is it better to have
this info in the UofC,B page and duplicate it on its own page, or is it
better to just have the info in one place and only make a separate [[Cory
Hall]] page when there's more info about it? Not an easy question to
answer, I think - the first could result in duplicated effort across the
two articles, while the second could discourage expansion of the info about
Cory Hall completely. But both seem reasonable positions, neither is absurd.
Anyway, how we handle stub articles like these is a separate issue to
deletions. Nobody's suggesting that we delete this sort of info.
LP (Camembert)
"Alex Rosen" <arosen(a)novell.com> schrieb:
> "Wikipedia is not paper, but it is also not a collection place
> for trivia. It remains an encyclopedia, which remains that we do have
> to
> have some limits on what is and what is not interesting."
>
> Here's how I interpret Jimbo's stance: "Wikipedia 1.0" (the eventual
> edited version) will be an encyclopedia, but Wikipedia is not now
> actually an encyclopedia. And to get to the eventual 1.0 version, it's
> better to encourage contributors, even if that means that a lot of
> non-encyclopedic content is added, because this kind of inclusionist
> policy will encourage more encyclopedic content as well (by not pissing
> people off by deleting things that they write).
>
> I don't know if that's true, but I think his view on this is important,
> and I'm tired of arguing about this (both here and on VfD), and I think
> we need a firm policy. And I'm OK with this policy.
It's a point of view, but I don't share it. In my opinion, we should try to get Wikipedia be as much of an encyclopedia as possible. Having a stable and published version will be interesting, but to me Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that we are making.
Andre Engels
"Jimmy Wales" <jwales(a)bomis.com> schrieb:
> Andre Engels wrote:
> > It seems that some people here are of the opinion that we should
> > just leave everything on Wikipedia that is written on it. I
> > disagree.
>
> Well, if anyone is actually of that opinion, then I disagree, too.
Interesting... In a previous discussion I really got the impression
that you are of this opinion. Or at least that you are thus if the
thing written is a fact.
Maybe you did not receive my last message in the previous discussion?
If you did, could you please react to the last part of it? I'd like
to know how far our opinions are apart.
Andre Engels
"Rick" <giantsrick13(a)yahoo.com> schrieb:
> My opinion is the same as yours. Such articles have no place on Wikipedia.
I agree. Wikipedia is not paper, but it is also not a collection place
for trivia. It remains an encyclopedia, which remains that we do have to
have some limits on what is and what is not interesting. It's just that
the bar can be laid a lot lower. It seems that some people here are of the
opinion that we should just leave everything on Wikipedia that is written
on it. I disagree.
Andre Engels
Someone mentioned Hitler, so I think it's time to give this thread a
rest.
Can we stop with the "obscured and failed artist" and "federal employee"
comments about Hitler and Bush, just for a few hours? I'm getting tired
of my in-box WAV file going "bing" every 2 minutes.
Ed Poor