This attempt to encourage change is based on your personal point of view
that a shift in the majority consensus on what is acceptable for
encyclopedic treatment, which might create the temporary wave of deletions
now occuring, is a bad thing inherently.
On 7/13/07, Ben Yates <ben.louis.yates(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Excuse me for trying to encourage change.
On 7/13/07, Steven Walling <steven.walling(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Th other thing that I notice about this project
is that they neglect to
notice that completely unencyclopedic or original research topics are
often
chock-full of good writing and cobbled together
citations. It's not
just, or
even primarily, poorly written articles needing
improvement that are
nominated as unencyclopedic. automatically going about and improving
articles under consideration for deletion as unencyclopedic assumes that
not
only nominators possess poor judegement, but that
the community at large
is
so stupid as to not be able to recognize when a
small or poorly written
article is worthy of encyclopedic treatment. The project's motto might
as
well be "Let's help the morons with no
vision!"
On 7/13/07, Steven Walling <steven.walling(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Unfortunately this is not always the case. AfD nominators are not
> perfect and are sometimes operating at least partly in ignorance about
> the subject of the article."
>
> So in other words, in urgin people to check every AFD, the project
> assumes good faith and poor judgement, intelligence (or both) on the
part of
> all nominators. that's even better.
> On 7/13/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > Steven Walling wrote:
> > > Articles are not "uncontroversially encyclopedic" when they
being
> > brought up
> > > for deletion because of their lack of encyclopedic content or
nature.
> >
> > Unfortunately this is not always the case. AfD nominators are not
> > perfect and are sometimes operating at least partly in ignorance
about
> > the subject of the article.
> >
> > > A
> > > taskforce improving articles that don't have an AFD nomination
would
> > be more
> > > in line with your flawed vision of what the project constitutes.
> >
> > That's what the rest of Wikipedia is already working on. Also, why
are
> > you so sure that it's Phil's
vision of the project that's flawed?
Last I
> > checked there were only four edits on
the project's page, it's still
> > quite nebulous and open to interpretation.
> >
> > > But when
> > > the project extensively mentions comabting what they see as
> > unnecessary
> > > deletions in its intro and includes a direct link to AFD, then
it's
> > not a
> > > resource for improving articles that need help the most, but a
project
> > for
> > > making sure borderline articles get kept. That's inclusioism.
> >
> > Not all AfDs result in delete, some result in keep. This alone
should
> > indicate that not all nominations are
"necessary." And besides,
whether
> > an article is "borderline" or
not is itself a subject that can often
be
debated.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
Ben Yates
Wikipedia blog -
http://wikip.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l