[WikiEN-l] Re: yet another image lost for posterity

[Anthony DiPierro]

On 11/29/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/29/05, Arwel Parry <arwel at cartref.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> > In message
> > <31073ef90511281617x7d096a26m53c249a3f1d17e3a at mail.gmail.com>, Mark
> > Wagner <carnildo-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> writes
> > >Assuming Wikipedia is running along smoothly, an administrator can
> > >delete one image every twenty seconds, if they don't notify the user
> > >first or remove the image from pages where it's used, and if they do
> > >only the quickest check to see if the image is tagged correctly.
> > >Deleting all these images would take 185 man-hours of effort.
> > >
> > >If the administrator removes the image from articles where it's used
> > >before deleting it, it takes about 40 seconds to delete an image.
> > >This increases the effort needed to 370 man-hours.
> >
> > Just a minute - are you honestly advocating that images should be
> > routinely deleted without removing links from articles which use them?
> > Because in that case I STRONGLY object to this attitude. For some time
> > I've been coming across articles on my watchlist which suddenly have red
> > image links in prominent places: apart from looking damned ugly, it's
> > highly give a highly unprofessional impression of Wikipedia. It should
> > be OBLIGATORY in my opinion for the people deleting images to FIRST
> > remove the links to them, and hang the extra work involved!
>
>
> {{sofixit}}
>
> --
> geni

Is {{sofixit}} a valid response to someone systematically going
through the encyclopedia and breaking stuff?  If I go around and
delete all facts which are both uncited and not in my own personal
knowledge, can I respond to anyone calling me a vandal with
{{sofixit}}?  The way to fixit is to adopt a policy which doesn't
intentionally create broken links in the first place.

Anthony