[WikiEN-l] Re: Wikipedia's provable anti-expertise bias (wasHowdidthis happe

[JAY JG]

>From: Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com>
>
>On 11/19/05, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Merge is a vote to merge. I don't see putting words into nominators'
> > mouths as acceptable.
>
>People who vote to merge are implicitly acknowledging that the
>information must be kept.  A merge can be undone by any editor,
>resulting in the status quo ante.  It follows that a merge is a keep
>by another name.  it's merely an editing operation and one that can be
>(and sometimes is) performed by a non-admin editor after an AfD close.

Merge votes are typically "merge whatever is useful". It's not an 
endorsement of the current contents, certainly not all of them, and it's 
definitely a statement that wherever the contents should be, it's not 
*here*.  Some editors pretend that 10 deletes, 4 merges, and 3 keeps means 
the article should stick around, when, in fact, it's a strong statement that 
*this* article should not exist, though it's possible that the information 
in it belongs somewhere else.

Jay.