On 7/15/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/15/07, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Here's an hypocrisy detector: did you ever
vote for deleting a list
where you nonetless were intrigued by some of the items you saw
listed, or for deleting an article which you nonetheless enjoyed or
learned from?
I've voted to delete articles that were intriguing. I think most of
the minor also-rans in lower level pageants articles need to go, yet
I've worked in pageantry, and do read the details of the articles
before sending them to the crap bin. In fact, they're one group of
articles on AfD that I do read almost the entire article every time.
KP
As opposed to all the other articles that you vote to delete (or not)
*without* reading the entire article? That's a bit disturbing. Or do I
misread?
Re: lists -- lists are awesome. We should treat them with the same standards
as regular articles -- that is, not singling them out for deletion because
they are unreferenced, which is a problem that plagues 90% of our content.
FWIW, Britannica *does* include (unreferenced!) lists. On a quick search,
for instance, I found "list of populated Dependent States" and "list of
major disasters that occurred in 1999". Granted, the first was in a table
embedded in the main article about dependent states, which might be a good
route to go for many lists that have complimentary main articles. Generally:
no, Britannica doesn't have "list of songs about x," but as we all know
they
also don't have all those troublesome articles about pop culture, movie
plots, kinky sex, etc. etc. etc. (though they do have much better
bibliographies, even if most articles lack references). **It's a poor
comparison.
phoebe