[WikiEN-l] Lauritsen speedy deletion??

[Karl A. Krueger]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 12:34:54AM +0800, John Lee wrote:
> This debate strikes me as being one, at its core, about eventualism 
> versus immediatism. Tony is arguing that the encyclopedia will clean 
> itself up eventually, and that if in doubt, it's better to leave 
> possible CSDs alone. Sam and geni are arguing from an immediatist 
> perspective, that if it can't be cleaned up immediately and is of no 
> encyclopedic value *as it is now*, then it's best junked. Sam is right 
> in that his approach is compliant with existing policy, as he is 
> deleting articles of no encyclopedic value. Tony is also justified in 
> saying that it may be better to clean up the article and replace the 
> unencyclopedic material instead of outright deleting.

Well, of course it's best to replace the unencyclopedic material with
encyclopedic material.  But sometimes the best is the enemy of the good.
(If you insist that a person not do _anything_ to help a situation if
they can't do the _best_ thing, then you decrease dramatically the
likelihood that anyone will do anything to help at all.)

It is certainly _good_ (although not best) to speedily delete "dis d00d
is kewl" articles, because they drag down the overall quality of the
encyclopedia.  Because doing so is good, it is not merely acceptable but
also to be encouraged ... when a better alternative is not convenient.

(Remember, just because a junk article is speedied *doesn't* mean that a
non-junk article under the same title will be deleted.  Deleting junk
doesn't get in the way of creating value.)

And junk articles aren't merely of "no encyclopedic value" -- they are
of _negative_ value to the encyclopedia, just as vandalism, spam, or
attack pages are.  Removing "dis d00d is kewl" or "your mom so gay"
articles is an active improvement and should be encouraged by everyone
who cares about retaining and including more value in the project.

-- 
Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger at whoi.edu>