On 12/05/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
4. From NOT, we're not an indiscriminate
collection of information. If
this only meant we don't accept unverifiable information, it would be
redundant to V. If it only meant we don't accept original research,
redundant to NOR. If it only meant we don't allow insertion of bias, it
would be redundant to NPOV. If it only meant that we don't accept
dicdefs, personal webpages, etc., it would be redundant to the rest of
NOT. Since it is indeed there, it indicates we intend to discriminate
beyond those principles.
That's the arse-backwards bit: NOT implies we *can*, not that we *have
to*, and it's not a fundamental the way the other three are.
5. From WP:CONSENSUS, it's pretty evident, by
the fact that we have been
deleting articles on the grounds of lack of notability for quite some
time, there is consensus to do so. (Of course, consensus can change, but
more such articles will be deleted today, and more after that tomorrow.)
The strong objections remain, however, so this one is also questionable.
To sum up: We need independent and reliable
sources on a subject so that
information is -verified- and -neutral-, and so that we need not use
-original research- to interpret that ourselves. We're -not- an
indiscriminate collection information, and we've generally demonstrated
-consensus- to delete articles which do not meet these criteria.
First sentence good, second sentence bad. What's the result of leaving
the second sentence off?
- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Actually, really nothing. If you like the first sentence, I think it
would stand on its own.