On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 03:19:05 -0700
Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
It bothers me too, profoundly. The need that some
people
have to delete what they deem "unencyclopedic" is
characteristically obsessive, even after allowing for the
behaviour to be in good faith. When a stub whose
contents are trivial generates controversy that is
completely out of proportion with its size it suggests to
me that maybe it would have been better left alone.
John seems to ignore the fact that the term, "I don't
care," is itself ambiguous. "I don't care about the
topic," does not mean, "I don't care if it's deleted."
If I say that I don't care about John's [[Allerton High
School]] it reflects that I probably never heard of it,
or that further information about it would have no effect
whatsoever on my life. But I at least presume that it's
probably real, and that being real it must have had some
number of students over the years to whom it would have
more significance.
In another current thread the question is posed about
what to present about Wikipedia to a conference of
teachers. One of the suggestions was to have a live
link, and let conference participants write something. A
teacher could then bring that experience to a classroom,
and generate a classroom exercise, a hands on teaching
moment. We end up with the Dartmouth (College not High
School) experience where the students were treated with
incredible rudeness just because they did not meet
someone's inflated Point of View about what is
encyclopedic.
People write best about what they know best. One's high
school is an excellent starting place for a beginner, as
would be other things in one's own community. A
classroom activity could include having everyone in the
class write something, and then a week or so later having
others in the class review and edit that article for
inaccuracies without knowing which classmate was the
original author. They could even report how strangers
had changed the article. If all that that second wave of
students can report is that the article was deleted it
will certainly discourage further "useful" activity.
Do we want new people?
Ec
Mark Richards wrote:
The problem boils down to one of POV. No, I
don't care
about a school in west nowhere, and I don't care about
a foreign handbag company. I care about Pokemon
characters, I don't care about Indian villages.
Slashdot jokes are in, high schools are out. Obscure
varients of Linux are in, obscure Hong Kong companies
are out.
The question is not 'are people within their "rights"'
to delete things that don't interest them, but does it
serve the creation of a neutral and wide scope
encyclopedia. We are removing content simply because
(mostly) American techies think it is unimportant.
That's what really bothers me.
Mark
--- John Lee <johnleemk(a)gawab.com> wrote:
>I believe in one of my more recent mails, I quoted
>[[What Wikipedia is not]] stating that it is not an
exhaustive list by
>any means.
>
>In any case, Mark, while there is no consensus to
>delete schools, there is none to keep them either.
Thus, I'd say those who
>are listing them are acting within their
rights,
because schools
>aren't covered by any policy; thus we
decide them on a
case-by-case basis.
>Democracy is always unfair to someone, but if
there was
a real
>miscarriage of justice, how come much of the
community
doesn't care we're
>deleting oh so important articles on Hong Kong
handbag
companies or high
>schools? (Of course, there's the issue of
whether there
was true
>consensus; in quite a few, there hasn't
been any.)
>
>It so happens that most people on VFD are
>deletionists. Inclusionists argue this is unfair as
important articles are
>unfairly deleted. However, this calls to mind
a recent
post to this
>list by, if I'm not mistaken, Dpbsmith:
Most people ARE
a "strong
>neutral" on these; they don't care
whether these
articles stay or go. I am
>of the same opinion. If they really felt the
system is
unfair, they'd
>either pack up and leave (those who have done
this are
so few, I doubt
>their existence) or complain. So far the only
people
complaining are
>those from the extreme inclusionist camp.
Therefore,
much of the community
>couldn't care less about the fate of
school articles.
Delete all
>articles with the word "green"? If
they found out,
they'd almost certainly
>be livid. Delete all school articles? Lots
probably
would care (I mean,
>would you delete an article on [[Eton]] or one
of those
posh prep
>schools?). Delete an article on, say,
[[Allerton High
School]]? Most
>wouldn't and don't care.
>
>The community is fine with the current practice,
>whether it's in line with policy or not. Remember,
policy and VFD exist
>to serve the community. They are the means to
an end.
Not an end
>>in themselves.
>>
>>i must say personally i must agree with ray.they had no
rihght to do
that.teachers input i deem as very important.i
feel they do not get enough of a podium to talk freely
about any issues because of parents,principals,other
teachers,ect.the one place where they can freely do this is
on this site.so why delete their input?>
______________________________________________________________
Herbalife Independent Distributor