On 1/30/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/30/06, Chris Jenkinson <chris(a)starglade.org> wrote:
I don't agree with the first premise. Why is
it better to delete "crap"
articles than improve/rewrite them?
That's sort of like saying, why do we have to choose between tax cuts
and more spending on health? Why don't we cut taxes *and* spend more
on health?
Oh wait..
Anyway, the vastness of crap on Wikipedia and the high proportion of
stubs indicate that the wikipedia workforce is unable/unwilling to
keep up with this amount of work. So, given that our poor dog is
suffering a terminal illness in great pain, do we put him down or
simply pray for him to get better?
Steve
Steve hits a core point here. A lot of people prefer to create new articles
instead of improving existing ones. Not bad in itself, but at some point we
have improve the stuff we've already got rather than adding to our
collection. Only so can we improve the quality of our articles.
Support FAC and projects that look for sources.
Deletion is only an option for stuff that clearly cannot be redeemed.
Mgm