[WikiEN-l] Re: Wikipedia's provable anti-expertise bias (was Howdidthis happen (comixpedia??))

[Mark Gallagher]

G'day Sam,

> On 11/19/05, Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch at gmail.com> wrote:
>>everybody considers a merge vote as a de-facto keep vote, because
>>thats what the rules say. If they think otherwise they are mistaken.
> 
> Please cite this rule and tell me which everyone thinks this.  I had
> thought "everybody" meant that all the members of a community, or at
> least a very large supermajority.  Once again, I fear you are moulding
> the facts until they become *your* facts.
> 
> The rules do *not* say that merge == keep.

I think it depends whether you look at it from a content- or page-based 
POV.  Those who want merges generally want the content kept, so they 
can't be considered fans of deletion.  However, they certainly don't 
want the page kept (indeed, some will even ask for the article to be 
deleted, rather than left as a redirect ... presumably this will involve 
some ultra-complicated wacky history merge thing).

It's not accurate to say that merge == keep *or* that merge == delete. 
Merge == merge.  Fortunately, it's usually the people pushing an 
"inclusionist" or "deletionist" view that take the "merges should be 
reinterpreted" line, and not the closing admins.

In any case, at the end of the day, it's just an article on a website 
(albeit, a super-mega-happy-awesome website).  I'm not going to lose any 
sleep over a page being kept, deleted, merged, BJOADNed, or anything 
else (well, I might get upset if [[Lang Hancock]] is deleted ...).


Cheers,

-- 
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.4/175 - Release Date: 18/11/2005