While it is easy to AGF for calling contributions cruft, it's not so easy for that comment. Bias can creep into statement of pure facts through the process of selection of facts. However such behavious is expected in AfD. People who don't have a blood-thirst don't *usually* spend their time in the destructive passtime of deleting articles.
Message: 8 Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 17:09:37 +0100 From: "Joe Anderson" Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Cruft To: "English Wikipedia" Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
By saying Only 91 edits. This is first to this namespace I was attempting to insert fact without opinion.
On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson wrote:
John, Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest is pretty much what I thought it meant.
On 5/2/06, John Lee wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson wrote:
I accept that some may see it as uncivil, but I for one do not.
In my opinion calling content contributed in good faith by our valued contributors "cruft" is incivil. It sends the clear message that their contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless. Why can't you just say "Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest"?
Kelly
What if what Joe took "cruft" to mean what you just said? After all, isn't that what it *does* mean? Why the stigmatism?
John _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
--------------------------------- Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2ยข/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.