It's so ironic that a post that began as a delighted note about someone
focusing on encyclopedic writing rather than notability debate morphs
into...a notability debate.
On 11/5/07, William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com> wrote:
Todd Allen wrote:
I'm not so sure. I like the idea of undue
weight in NPOV. I think it's
an important principle. I think people forget that "edit" often means
"cut" (in fact, for most who have the position of editor, their major
role is to cut and exclude). That's not a -bad- part of the editing
process, it's a necessary one. People tend to throw around "delete"
like it's a dirty word, when really an editing process without it just
leads to confusing, disorganized, crufty material.
Or to put it more shortly, sometimes we're giving undue weight to
something by including it at all.
That puzzles me.
I agree we should delete confusing, disorganized or crufty material,
naturally. But could you tell me more about how we could give a subject
undue weight by including it?
I'm trying to think of some topic where we could verify the material in
reliable sources, but the very inclusion of which would violate undue
weight. It would seem that if somebody were to bother publishing
something solid on the topic, that would imply an audience, so we'd have
no reason not to follow suit eventually. Could you give some sort of
example?
Thanks,
William
--
William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri
_______________________________________________
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