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

[Sam Korn]

On 11/20/05, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
> 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 ...).

Well said, Mark.

>From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raul654/Raul%27s_laws

Jacqui's law: the longer a user spends time in polls and/or debates,
the more he or she will see each question as a binary of delete or
keep.

--
Sam