On 10/17/05, Chris Jenkinson <chris(a)starglade.org> wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
If pointing this out offends you, I'm sorry.
There is no pleasant way
to put that bad news.
My original statement was that I disapprove of you insulting the other
side while criticising their actions. It's unnecessary. I am not
offended by your opinions on the issue (and I'm not quite sure how you
got that idea from my previous comment).
Question: was the unanimous decision to delete an informed one, or was
it an uninformed one?
In this case, we have overwhelming evidence that it was uninformed.
We're letting articles be deleted because the editors who happened to
look at a nomination were ignoramuses. I don't mean that they were
uninformed, but that *they failed to inform themselves*.
Why do we have a process that is biasds towards taking into account
the opinions of people who clearly do not make an effort to inform
themselves?
And then in the VFU phase we have people who utterly refuse to take
into account the content of the article and its value to Wikipedia,
and in fact go so far as to claim falsely that it would be wrong to do
so.
Again, wilful ignorance.
I cannot put it any other way.
Wikipedia deletion policy is being traduced by ignoramuses.