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.
>
>