[WikiEN-l] Time to reboot wikien-l

[jayjg]

On Nov 21, 2007 5:46 PM, James Farrar <james.farrar at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21/11/2007, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 21, 2007 1:26 PM, James Farrar <james.farrar at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 21/11/2007, joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu <joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu> wrote:
> > > > Quoting jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > > Just because the outcome is the same doesn't mean the reasoning for
> > > > > doing so was the same. Crappy links are deleted for all sorts of
> > > > > reasons, mostly because they're crappy, even if they would also have
> > > > > been deleted under that strawman BADSITES policy.
> > > >
> > > > Except none of these were crappy links. These were links that would have been
> > > > included in article space but for the fact that they contained material we
> > > > didn't like.
> > >
> > > Or that they were links to pages on sites that had *some pages* that
> > > contained material that we didn't like.
> >
> > Which, again, would pretty much describe every single link that has
> > ever been deleted from Wikipedia.
>
> Pathetic.

That's a very uncivil comment, James.

>
> Links are, and should be, deleted from Wikipedia because they are
> unencyclopaedic.

Right.

> Links should not be (but have been) deleted from Wikipedia if they
> have encyclopaedic value simply because of material "that we don't
> like" that happens to be hosted on the same website.

Define "encyclopedic value". Now get 10 Wikipedians to agree on that definition.