Steve Bennett-4 wrote:
Again, replace Star Trek with Pokemon (my favourite punching bag, for
no real reason). Would you really entrust Pokemon fans with deciding
which Pokemon articles are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia?
Surely your proposal simply leads to vastly greater inclusion rates.
But if all of those articles were of good quality and well referenced, who
could possibly object? Those articles are still subject to fearless editing
from anybody who wants to fix the often egregious grammar and spelling (as
is common elsewhere I should add :-). Also WP:NOT paper, remember? It's not
as if those articles on Pokemon are taking up space which would otherwise be
available for your own pet subject.
Also, that knife cuts both ways: you could set up your own WikiProject(s) to
cover your areas of interest. Would you want armies of Pokemon fans
hammering your articles because they don't think they're notable?
Actually, come to think of it, doesn't it seem interesting that you don't
often see a Pokemon fan trying to have huge swathes of articles on other
subjects removed because they don't recognise the subjects? Maybe some
people could learn a bit of tolerance from their example...
--
Phil
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/We-need-a-policy-against-vote-stacking-t1553689.html#…
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at
Nabble.com.