--- geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/22/05, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gawab.com>
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.
Oh nothing that simple. Eventualism gives two ways
to analyise the situation:
Leveing rubish doesn't matter becuase it will
improve
Deleting rubish doesn't matter becuase there will be
plently more
along in five minutes.
Thus eventualism doesn't ultimately support either
side.
--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
But eventualism does support a tag and bag
system...during high volume periods, if garbage gets
through, the vast majority of it will end up in orphan
or lonelypage special pages. Now, there's a large
backlog there but they are filtered in that way and
can be examined, they are not lost in the vastness of
Wikipedia. (if I understand those special pages
correctly)
I see invalid speedy deletions everytime I look, valid
content is lost, good new users are confused, annoyed
and in some cases lost. If we're not going to honor
speedy criteria then why even have them? Garbage
content hurts us as does losing valid content...but we
have control over deleting garbage...once good content
is lost, for the most part it's just gone, we don't
know when or if we'll ever get it back...
I think there's a way to make tag and bag work if we
want to, keeping encyclodpedic content is what we're
supposed to be doing...anyway, sorry for the rant....