Toby answered Ed Poor:
> >Instead, once or twice a month I glance at the article deletion log
and
> >resurrect anything that was thrown out too hastily (it's the Ent in
me,
> >I guess: no such thing as dead wood, hoom, hoom).
>
> Ed, I'd like to hear more (on the list or by email)
> about how you find this tactic works for you --
> especially given the cautious approach you take to most controversy.
> For example, do people get upset at your undeletions? Do you find
> yourself spending a lot of time researching good stubs to replace
> deleted text on articles that you'd otherwise ignore? And so on.
No one's ever complained about the articles I've undeleted. Most of them
were graffiti that I turned into a stub with 5 minutes of googling.
One time, I hastily "blanked" a couple of articles that I thought were
sheer POV, but another user pointed out the context so I unblanked them
(something to do with natural health, non-Western medicine or
[[Holism]], I think).
I don't like deleting "pages". If I find a horribly written article, but
it's a topic of interest (to me or to potential readers) -- then I think
it's a better use of community time to:
* take 5 minutes of my own time to google it into a stub; or,
* take 15 to 30 minutes and whip it into shape (e.g., by refactoring)
Rather than:
* take 2 minutes of my time to list it on votes for deletion
* take up huge amounts of others' valuable time by 'inviting' them to
figure out whether to "keep" or "delete" it.
As eclectic as we are, we don't need any more lightning rods...
Ed Poor