On 4/19/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
This is the best argument for not accepting articles which will receive no significant attention, either from the public or from us. We have long passed the point recent changes patrolling will catch all such vandalism.
Fred
Most cases of articles not receiving attention are due to the people who could handle it either aren't online at the time such vandalism occurs or simply don't know the article exists.
I have multiple biographies of living people on my watchlist and I can give it attention, but I can't check that list for vandalism 24/7. Anyway, I don't think cutting otherwise okay articles is the way to deal with this. That's like giving in to the vandals.
I am still waiting for Stable Versions.
Mgm
Why is it that you consider deletion the solution? Wouldn't the logical first step be to try to get attention to the articles that need it?
Also, biographies of living people may be the articles that can lead to legal cases if they contain libel or severe inaccuracies, but they're not more important than the other articles. An article about a 17th century painting needs to be just as accurate if we want to have a good encyclopedia. Are you going to delete that article too if no one is looking after it?
Mgm