Travis Mason-Bushman wrote:
On 1/20/06 11:27 PM, "Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Travis Mason-Bushman wrote:
I would vehemently disagree, especially when among those ten articles are hoaxes, thinly veiled attack pages, vanispamcruftvertisements and other such content that has the effect of actively making Wikipedia a *worse* and *less authoritative* source of information.
Since absolutely nobody is arguing to keep the kind of article you describe you are saved from you self-imposed obligation of vehemently disagreeing.
And we are saved from falling to the [[false dilemma]] [[strawman]] raised by Mr. Nelson, that somehow you cannot rid Wikipedia of patently bad articles without deleting good ones.
No he didn't. I quote Mr. Nelson:
If I were to set my spam filters to mark nearly everything as spam, I'd lose messages that matter. Maybe not a lot, maybe it works most of the time... but I'd lose some. Whereas if I set things so that messages are only marked as spam if they absolutely are, I can get 0 real messages junked and only a few dozen bad ones slip through.
He's using an analogy here, but basically what he's saying about article deletion is "if we only delete articles as 'bad' when they absolutely are, we lose 0 good articles and only a few dozen bad articles slip through." The sorts of articles you're talking about above (hoaxes, thinly veiled attack pages, vanispamcruftvertisements) are the sort that are _obviously bad_, and so under Mr. Nelson's preferences would still get deleted.