</snip>
Brian Peppers is perhaps the lowest that any editor
can go on. It is
everything that wikipedia is not. As I said we echo the craziest things from
a new japanese playing card game and list every character down to their
waist size to news of a cabinet reshuffle before its hit the lunchtime
news. We are not a pen and paper encyclopedia and we have the ability to
echo sourced information long before other have to shift through google
"priority" hits, but when things are nasty, irrelevent or just downright
shocking internet memes - I say don't go there.
But who determines whether it is 'nasty, irrelevent or just downright
shocking'? I certainly don't have the same opinion on the matter as
you or as several admins. Does this mean that I am wrong? Perhaps. But
I would argue that it is important that policy strive for objective
measures so that there are no nasty suprises to people several hundred
revisions and many consensuses later.
Sincerely,
Silas Snider
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silas Snider is a proud member of the Association of Wikipedians Who
Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category
of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad
Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist
(AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD) , and the Harmonious
Editing Club of Wikipedia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------