On 1/3/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Even ignoring the fact that claims of non-biased are meaningless for non-verifyable articles ... It simply doesn't scale.
Where did nonverifiability come into the discussion?
More than anything else people learn how to write Wikipedia by reading Wikipedia... We now are seeing people write fair use criteria for clearly free images because that's the examples they see. We must lead by example. While we can't find every problem we can not survive if we adopt a policy of ignoring problems we've found simply because a single case won't kill us.
"We cannot survive"? Is someone predicting the imminent death of Wikipedia? What problems are being ignored?
This is a distinct issue from inclusion vs deletion.
Frankly, all mentions of deletion vs inclusion these days just become an excuse for some of our contributors to express their hate for other contributors. All the particapants in these arguments are managing to accomplish is the distruction of their respect from Wikipedians who are not members of their clique. This factionalism serves no one.
Who is expressing hate for anyone?
On 1/3/07, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
Wednesday, January 3, 2007, 7:58:27 PM, The Cunctator wrote:
It's a perfectly fine, non-biased article that is hurting NOONE by its existence and represents real effort by the contributors. Why does it
need
to be deleted? WHY?
That's not a valid argument. If I write a fine, non-bias article on
myself,
it wouldn't hurt NO ONE, either and it would be a real effort from me, the contributor, right?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l