Rick wrote:
Are you saying that those of us who think that VfD is
useful are not
contributing anything useful? What about people like Lir, who feel
that those of us who want to add things to VfD should instead make the
article somehow "better" instead of garbage? Isn't that "taking time
away" from what we do best?
So what you are saying is that adding things to VfD is what you do best?
.... and a half-hour of your time is worth more than the one hour of
combined time of other people? Lir is right about this.
I'm sick and tired of being attacked as if what
I'm doing on
Wikipedia is somehow of lesser quality thatn what you and other people
do. Am I not worth keeping around? Should I go away?
I'll interpret these as rhetorical questions that do not require an answer
Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Rick wrote:
Why can't you just indicate on VfD why you
think the article is
valid?
Because it requires us to spend time
at VfD when we could be doing
something useful. The most useful contributors are busy contributing.
Hurrying them to improve the article in question within seven days
means they have to take time away from what they do best. If they are
interested in the subject matter they'll deal with it according to
their
own timetables, and not when some deletionist tells them to.
Some of us like to consider our votes carefully. If it takes five
minutes each to consider each of a dozen articles that might
appear on
VfD on a given day that's an hour of time spent just deciding on
votes,
and the article itself is still unchanged. Even when the result of a
vote is unquestionably in favour of deletion, and the article is
deleted, we are no further ahead; we're just back at the point
where we
were before that article was written.
We are all limited in the amount of time that we can contribute.
Consider even some of our most severe edit wars, and I would suggest
that at any given time the number of people directly involved is
fairly
small.
If somebody who is considering an article to be added to VfD instead
took 15 minutes to half an hour researching and improving that
article,
it would save everybody's time, and Wikipedia would end up with a
something rather than a nothing.