I've never understood the mentality that it's okay to keep trash articles around for some unknown period of time. Months, now?! Do you not understand what it says about Wikipedia when Google and Yahoo! mirror all of the crap and that's the face that Wikipedia presents to the world? How are we supposed to maintain even the idea that we're creating a real, useable encyclopedia if anybody is allowed to put whatever trash they want to put into it and nobody seems to be the least motivated to clean it up?
RickK
Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote: Daniel P.B.Smith wrote:
[...]
Who cares if there's a page up for a month or so lauding the wonders of the Nelson A. Rockefeller Center? These article all fall squarely in the "borderline" category. Get them cleaned up, but we don't need to drop everything and do it right away.
This should be tattooed on the back of each hand of every Wikipedian, so it's visible while typing. :-)
Going by comments I've seen, I think it feeds some people's egos to believe that they're saving WP's reputation from certain doom by quick listing of obscure articles on VfD - but WP's reputation is really made or broken by the quality of content in the articles of general interest, since those are the ones that readers find.
Another thing that I see is a sense of urgency, as if all the editing is going to come to a stop in 24 hours, and everything needs to be perfect by then. Even some oldtimers seem to act as if they don't really believe WP will be around next year, the year after, and the year after that. (It will, right? :-) )
Stan
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.