Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>
wrote:
I don't accept the framing. As far as I'm
concerned, a deletion is an assertion that the topic is unwelcome. In other words that no
useful stub can be made. Not that _no useful stub can be made out of the words on the
page_. I'm sure we used to be better at this.
Maybe we did, back when we had fewer than two million articles and
fewer than a million users, and were not a top-ten site making us an
essential part of any vanity, spam or POV-pushing campaign.
Well, this is a live issue. What is the correct level of due diligence for a deleting
admin? If it is a funny foreign-sounding name (to native English speakers), or written in
bad English, do you do more or less before deleting? Do you think first what the
encyclopedia needs, or do you cite policy and say "just following orders"?
Tomorrow, I think, the problem gets exacerbated by re-enabling article creation by IP
numbers? That "announcement" was not retracted, I think. So New Pages patrollers
get Space Invaders with double aliens. Are we going to benefit with new articles that will
correct systematic bias, or, per Guy, will _even less be done_, in an average case, to
salvage the articles we are really short of?
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from
www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam