Ray Saintonge wrote:
doc wrote:
Perhaps it is time to look again at out "default is keep" in areas where we have a maintenance problem that is damaging us. A gentle move towards "we keep what we agree to keep", in these specific areas, is perhaps overdue.
This is certainly a retrograde proposal. These maintenance problems are with with certain editors, not with the articles. Making life difficult for the good-faith editors just because their articles tend to be the favorite targets of various problem editors is too much like punishing the victim instead of the offender.
Ec
Hm, the "victim" here is the subject I'd say. And the problem lies not with "one or two editors" but with a community that insists in keeping more biographies than it can realistically maintain - so we get the moronic chanting of "keep, in theory this can be fixed" by people unwilling to lift a finger to keep it fixed.
The problem with your response it that it is extremely myopic. It sees "fairness" and "righteousness" only in terms of the community and the rights of editors.
Having an article I've authored deleted may be annoying, but it is not anywhere in the same league of "punishment" as finding that a high-profile website you've never heard of has been hosting a character-assassinating biography on you written by someone who hates you. And when you complain you find they /might/ clean it up, but they have no realistic mechanism or interest in preventing a re-occurrence, unless you personally log in every day and check it.
That's what I'd really call "punishing the victim"!
Doc