From: Ken Arromdee <arromdee(a)rahul.net>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:26:59 -0800 (PST)
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Jeff Raymond wrote:
This is when we start looking incredibly dumb as
an organization when we
delete articles about subjects that obviously exist, are obviously well
know, and are actually verifiable, but because we can't bring ourselves
to
trust a source that isn't available in dead
tree form somewhere, we
won't
have the article. Doesn't make a lot of
sense.
This sounds like a classic example of stretching the wrong rule because the
right rule doesn't exist. It happens a lot in the real legal system, and
usually causes more problems than it solves because once you've stretched a
rule to cover the case, that becomes a precedent to interpret the rule in
that manner forever. (See: Commerce Clause.)
WP:RS is already broken, especially when it comes to not allowing web and
other self-published sources for non-academic subjects. If you want to
delete
the GNAA article, I suggest either using Ignore All Rules to delete it, or
coming up with a new rule. I suggest a rule something like "A Wikipedia
article may be deleted if merely creating and publicizing a neutral article
advances the goal of the article's subject." (Of course a full version of
the rule would have to be worded more carefully so you don't delete
articles
about Wikipedia itself.)
Any organization that benefits from publicity is advanced by having a
Wikipedia article; such a "rule" sounds dangerous, even if carefully worded.
Your contention, that a rule is being stretched here, only really makes
sense if one has already accepted your second contention, that WP:RS is
broken. I think I understand that perspective, but I tend to adopt a
different one. I don't see WP:RS (and WP:V) as broken, so much as defining
our scope. I guess if one thinks the floor should be three feet lower, the
current floor would seem broken, but I like the height it's at now. There
are other sources for information that doesn't meet our inclusion standards
- Wikipedia isn't trying to be all sources, nor should it.
I guess the floor metaphor is oversimple. It's more like our floor is
multi-level, and people are arguing over whether there are holes in it that
should be filled in, or whether those holes *are* the floor. I say fill 'em
in and let the underground be documented by those who document the
underground; they exist.
Tony/GTBacchus
_________________________________________________________________
View Athletes Collections with Live Search