John Lee wrote:
But apparently the rest of Wikipedia doesn't mind
these American geeks
deleting them. And if you're going to claim that the rest of Wikipedia
are made up of American geeks, I must disagree. Do geeks make up a
substantial amount in our community? Yes. However, the ratio of geeks
to non-geeks has been going down in the past few years.
While it's based mostly on opinion, I think most people would agree
that our goal of building an encyclopedia is not drastically hurt by
the deletion of school articles. Hopefully, eventually we will be able
to have more school articles, but Wikipedia exists to serve our
audience, which does not appear to mind the lack of school articles
much, if at all. Currently, few people are really worried about school
articles. That may change in the future, but until it does, we must
work with the community, even if you think it's an unreasonable one.
I have no objective data about our proportion of "American geeks", and I
would say that your asserion that the rest of Wikipedia doesn't mind
being deleted by them is not evidence based.
While there is some element of truth to the belief that "an"
encyclopedia is not "drastically" hurt by deleting school articles. The
conclusions that you extrapolate from that are little more than
sophistry. Yes, eventually we should have more school articels, but
meanwhile they need to be subjugated to a deletionist gauntlet which
then turn around and says that the paucity of such articles justifies
the deletion of additional ones. This may be hypocrisy as well as
sophistry. You have purported to reflect the community, but have you
tested your hypothesis, or are you just engaging in pseudoscience? And
to close by saying, "WE must work with the community, even if YOU think
it's an unreasonable one." Is this rhetorical flourish or what? It's a
clever change from first to second person in the sentence. Where do you
get the idea that the rest of us consider the community unreasonable?
We may consider you unreasonable, but you are not the community.
Ec