What needs to be done is to remove all information that lacks a
source in a reputable reference. I know that is burdensome. Start
small on the most egregious example and enter into dispute resolution
with whoever attempts to revert; I am not suggesting you revert back
even once. As someone once said, "Anyone is entitled to their own
opinion; no one is entitled to their own facts." There were
irregularities, one occurred in the county I live in, Saguache
County, Colorado; here the district judge removed the County Clerk
from supervision of the election due to irregularities. That incident
was richly documented in the local papers. Rank speculation is quite
another matter.
Fred
On Oct 17, 2005, at 7:40 PM, Snowspinner wrote:
[[2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and
irregularities]]
and its 8 sub-articles, at present, take up 56085 words. This is
five times as much as the whole of our coverage on Immanuel Kant.
The articles are, needless to say, utter crap - full of conspiracy
theory rantings and POV, they read like the collected waste
products of a month of blogging, which is, not coincidentally,
exactly what they are.
All of them have been VfDed on two occasions a year or so ago when
the election actually happened, and survived. In that time, they've
only gotten worse, more bloated, and more absurd.
What can we do about these articles, and other cases of what we
might call POV by volume - [[Jack Thompson (attorney)]] and
[[Westboro Baptist Church]] spring to mind here as well.
My inclination, quite honestly, is to speedy all nine of these
election articles and let people start over. Whatever comes now, a
year after the event, cannot possibly be as appallingly bad as this.
And don't just shoot back with {{sofixit}} - there's no good fix.
It would involve deleting 90% of all 8 of these articles, a change
that would be quickly reverted anyway, and, with the way my editing
has been going, probably lead to my getting another RfC, because
they seem all the rage.
We need some sort of system that's going to untangle this kind of
mess - something that doesn't rely on enough people with a whit of
common sense watchlisting the articles and being willing to angrily
revert the stupid, because, quite frankly, that obviously didn't
work here.
Thoughts? Jimbo in particular?
-Snowspinner
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l