Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 01:11:17AM -0600, Todd Allen wrote:
Philip Sandifer wrote:
On Oct 28, 2007, at 3:14 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
Those "Hey, I'll start a one-para article on something I know" are
generally just as bad or worse, and harder to remove.
I'm missing, I think, why this is bad. -Phil
No sources, half the time ("half" being probably an underestimation) on very, very borderline subjects that -just- duck speedy to start with, usually most of what's there is wrong (because it's pulled from memory, not sources), etc.
I think that the majority of articles were probably pulled from memory and then later the author or others added sources and modified the article to match the sources. One reason why wikipedia is so successfull is that the collective memory of people is massive. Do not knock it? If we relied on people going to sources first all the time, the place would be much less successful, much less interesting and much smaller. The collective knowledge of people is what WP has tapped into.
Exactly. That's why lack of sources by itself should never be a basis for speedy deletion. If Todd wants to make this about "borderline subjects" that's a completely different criterion that needs to be investigated separately. "Borderline" suggests uncertainty, and that too makes speedy inapplicable.
"Collective memory" is a tough idea for some people out there at the triple point of knowledge. Those standing on solids still need the wisdom to distinguish between the gas and liquid states.
Ec