</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
Look some of the WP:BLP deletions haven't been fun. I don't particulary
like every wikilawyer quoting WP:BLP at me either. I can imagine the horror
of hours of edits going through the mincer and I am not saying that policy
is always right or admins. But when an article is presented in such a way
that if lends it weight to shock or ridicule, I can't see how even the most
"give the benefit of the doubt" editor can say that articles like that suck
and why didn't it get a spd? I'm not trying to give you the mighty mighty
tiger argument - "then consider it was you on WP?" I am saying if it isn't
covered by notable news organisations then neither should we.