On 2/22/06, Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com wrote:
- Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia, isn't it? Surely you can have
an encyclopedia without an article on Brian Peppers in it. Many other encyclopedias get by without such an article.
Nice straw man. Let's make that a new CSD while we're at it - "This article not covered in other encyclopedias."
I'm sorry, but you are making a straw man here. His point is that Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia, with or without a Brian Peppers article. That's patently true.
I know there is a lot of middle stuff in part 3, and the arguments expanded
well beyond the legal worries raised in 2 (although quite a few people calling for deletion continued to cite them), but it is really disheartening to to note that, in effect, a prankster just succeeded in having an article removed from Wikipedia.
A cursory review of this case seems to indicate that Jimbo didn't intend for his deletion to be the final word on the subject.
01:40, 22 February 2006 Jimbo Waleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Walesdeleted "Brian Peppers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Peppers" (We can live without this until 21 February 2007, and if anyone still cares by then, we can discuss it)
The page says it should not be recreated "until February 21" at the earliest. It is now February 22. I think that now is a good time to keep our [[WP:COOL]] and talk this out rather than run around screaming about how the sky is falling and how Jimbo is ruining our wiki.
Every controversial issue is going to generate many different views about how it ought to be dealt with. The important thing for all sides to remember is that (A) the views held by other people are held in good faith even if they seem wrong, so they deserve consideration and respect and (B) our own views might actually be the wrong ones, and the only way to find out whose idea is best is to discuss it calmly and rationally, without any hightened emotions or committment to proving others wrong and winning the argument. Whenever you approach another editor who has a differing view, your attitude should be "We disagree, so let's talk this out until we find out which of us is wrong so that we can both be better off".
Practically every major controversy could have been dealt with smoothly had everyone remembered these principles. I confess that I've forgotten them myself on more than one occasion. It's easy to view someone with a wrong idea as basically a vandal who is trying to destroy your precious wiki that we've worked so hard to improve. But the reality of the situation is that pretty much everyone here -- including AFD voters, userbox editors, pedophiles, and Jimbo -- is editing because they want to help make Wikipedia better. Some of them may be misguided about how to do it, but they have that fundamental good will at heart, and that means that they don't deserve to be stomped on or treated like villains. Ever.
Ryan