On 10/24/05, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/24/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam(a)inbox.org> wrote:
So deletion is the only solution to something
that is low quality? I
would
think making it higher quality would also
suffice.
yeah but I think we have fairly firmly established that that isn't
happening.
Articles aren't getting better? I disagree.
Not at all. I'm an inclusionist, and I'd much
rather have better articles
than more articles. However 1) I think deletion
is a waste of time that
could be better spent improving articles, and 2) I don't think the two
are
mutually exclusive, I think you can have more
articles *and* better
articles.
So please, if you're not an inclusionist, don't speak for us. That's
called
a strawman argument.
1)I can delete stuff at a rate of more than once a second
Speedy delete, maybe, but the current deletion process is too permanent to
allow any admin to speedy delete any article for any reason. If you allowed
editors to view deleted articles that might be a solution, but until then it
isn't.
2)Errr that isn't happening.
I disagree.
3)It's called Reductio ad absurdum. The logical
endpoint of the
inclusionist position is to include everything.
Huh? Is the logical endpoint of the deletionist position to delete
everything?