Serious encyclopedia means leaving out material that is not encyclopedic. Too many editors are stretching the meaning of encyclopedic to include anything that can be sourced. During Afd, it is very common for editors to cite tabloids, forums or publicly written dictionaries such as Urban Dictionary. http://www.urbandictionary.com/. Since it takes a super majority to delete, often the outcome is no consensus and the material stays.
Sydney
Sam Korn wrote:
On 4/7/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
No, I think what's being asked for is a group of people who will apply policy in a neutral way. The votes are already stacked, that's the purpose of having policy; policy is the vote stacking tool, not the group of editors. RFC provides no comment, at least not at articles I've listed on it. Actually, if I'm honest, I'm finding more and more that Wikipedia is imply broken. We've got clear guidance at [[WP:RS]] that message boards aren't acceptable sources, and yet we've got thousands of articles that are relying on just that. Either we need to rewrite our policies and have an anything goes policy, or we need to get a lot tougher in enforcing the key policies.
And if we want to be a serious encyclopaedia, it must be the latter.
-- Sam _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l