The whole discussion of "is it encyclopedic" is missing the point
entirely. Is an article interesting? Has it been cobbled together
painstakingly, bit by bit, by a hundred different people until it's
the only resource of its kind in the world? Will someone find the
article hilarious, or cool? If any of these things are true, then it
is *morally wrong* to just delete the article. It's like taking an
oil painting and feeding it into a shredder because it's not the right
*type* of oil painting. If a great article doesn't belong on
wikipedia, then it should be moved somewhere else, not just deleted.
On 7/16/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 16:41:22 +0300,
"Jussi-Ville Heiskanen" wrote:
Not so much a case in point, but a touchstone. Do
*you* think we are
better or worse than Britannica for having "List of songs about
masturbation". Stand up and be counted...
No, a case in point. There is no encyclopaedic topic "songs about
masturbation" because there is nothing about masturbation which has
any logical connection with songs, and vice-versa (although I
suppose one could stretch a point and say that, for example, Whitney
Houston's "I will always love you" gives more pleasure to the
performer than anybody watching).
There's always the version of the Eric Bogle song "Nobody's Moggy
where the dearly departed is in pussy heaven dreaming of masturbating
mice (instead of masticating them). :-)
I am all for setting up a sister project,
triviapedia or whatever,
for collecting such examples of word association gone mad, but
there's no question in my mind that a neutral, verifiable
encyclopaedia is not the place for them.
I think you are taking this issue too seriously.
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: