It's so ironic that a post that began as a delighted note about someone focusing on encyclopedic writing rather than notability debate morphs into...a notability debate.
On 11/5/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Todd Allen wrote:
I'm not so sure. I like the idea of undue weight in NPOV. I think it's an important principle. I think people forget that "edit" often means "cut" (in fact, for most who have the position of editor, their major role is to cut and exclude). That's not a -bad- part of the editing process, it's a necessary one. People tend to throw around "delete" like it's a dirty word, when really an editing process without it just leads to confusing, disorganized, crufty material.
Or to put it more shortly, sometimes we're giving undue weight to something by including it at all.
That puzzles me.
I agree we should delete confusing, disorganized or crufty material, naturally. But could you tell me more about how we could give a subject undue weight by including it?
I'm trying to think of some topic where we could verify the material in reliable sources, but the very inclusion of which would violate undue weight. It would seem that if somebody were to bother publishing something solid on the topic, that would imply an audience, so we'd have no reason not to follow suit eventually. Could you give some sort of example?
Thanks,
William
-- William Pietri william@scissor.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l