Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Steve Bennett wrote:
There is a small ski area in some mountains not
terribly far from a
helipad by the side of a road. The ski area sells ski packages that
include helicopter transport to and from the ski area. There are no
roads directly there, but one can safely presume that it's possible to
hike to the area - as you point out, you can pretty much hike anywhere
if you want to badly enough.
And you think that saying "accessible only by helicopter" is a
non-neutral opinion.
It's pretty obvious that he doesn't actually object to the article on the
basis that the helicopter reference is POV. He objects to the article because
he sees this kind of article as cruft and is grasping at straws for a reason
to delete it without saying "I want to delete it because it's cruft".
The system constantly gets abused in this way. The stricter we get about out
policies, the easier it is to use the policy as a tool to get something else.
_______________________________________________
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
It's cruft!
Oh, were we waiting for someone to say that?
But that aside, it should still be deleted. There's a good reason to
require a significant amount of independent sourcing. First-party
sources may be biased, promotional, inaccurate, incomplete, technically
correct but deliberately misleading, or any combination of the above.
Good secondary sources check for those things, cross-check one another,
aren't interested in promoting the subject, and look for non-obvious
details. When we've got quite a few reliable, secondary sources on
something, we can be pretty sure we've got a good, complete picture of
it. And that's how we build neutral, verifiable articles without using
original research.
That, is why we do and should require such sourcing.