On 03/06/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/06/01/allison-stokkes-wikipedia-entry-ke...
The telling thing in the deletion review is the deleting admin's comment that "I don't particularly care if the abuse of power by certain admins angers some people".
Sigh.
On 03/06/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/06/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/06/01/allison-stokkes-wikipedia-entry-ke...
The telling thing in the deletion review is the deleting admin's comment that "I don't particularly care if the abuse of power by certain admins angers some people". Sigh.
I was actually interested in the less inbred view, i.e. looking at what normal people think on this sort of thing.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 03/06/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/06/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/06/01/allison-stokkes-wikipedia-entry-ke...
The telling thing in the deletion review is the deleting admin's comment that "I don't particularly care if the abuse of power by certain admins angers some people". Sigh.
I was actually interested in the less inbred view, i.e. looking at what normal people think on this sort of thing.
All you did was post a raw URL, with a subject header that was merely descriptive of its contents. How was James to know what you were actually interested in?
I think we've moving from having inaccuracy and vandalism as our major PR problems to having notability and deletion as our PR problem instead. In a sense it's a sign of progress; people are no longer as cheesed off about how "bad" Wikipedia is, they're upset about whether it covers them or not. Shows we're now seen as an "institution". But still, it's something that should be addressed.