In a message dated 2/6/2008 4:55:31 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, wikimail@inbox.org writes:
Rolling stubs together into one list makes no sense. ..... And what is the benefit?>>> ------------------ To stop AfD's ?
Will Johnson
**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp00300000... 48)
Rolling stubs together into one list makes no sense. ..... And what is the benefit?
Less articles to worry about. That's why we delete things than a non-notable in the first place, as far as I can tell - they're not worth having an extra article to monitor for vandalism, etc.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Rolling stubs together into one list makes no sense. ..... And what is the benefit?
Less articles to worry about. That's why we delete things than a non-notable in the first place, as far as I can tell - they're not worth having an extra article to monitor for vandalism, etc.
The problem here is that some people stress out more over vandalism than content. There's a curious logic behind the notion that vandalism can be reduced by cutting down the number of articles. It's a bit like an invader who reduces the population of the conquered territory now in order to have a lower death rate in the future.
Ec
On 08/02/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Rolling stubs together into one list makes no sense. ..... And what is the benefit?
Less articles to worry about. That's why we delete things than a non-notable in the first place, as far as I can tell - they're not worth having an extra article to monitor for vandalism, etc.
The problem here is that some people stress out more over vandalism than content. There's a curious logic behind the notion that vandalism can be reduced by cutting down the number of articles. It's a bit like an invader who reduces the population of the conquered territory now in order to have a lower death rate in the future.
It doesn't reduce vandalism, it makes vandalism easier to manage because it's more contained. Less pages to monitor means less chance of vandalism slipping through the net. It's not just vandalism, though, any kind of "routine maintenance" is easier with fewer articles.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 08/02/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Rolling stubs together into one list makes no sense. ..... And what is the benefit?
Less articles to worry about. That's why we delete things than a non-notable in the first place, as far as I can tell - they're not worth having an extra article to monitor for vandalism, etc.
The problem here is that some people stress out more over vandalism than content. There's a curious logic behind the notion that vandalism can be reduced by cutting down the number of articles. It's a bit like an invader who reduces the population of the conquered territory now in order to have a lower death rate in the future.
It doesn't reduce vandalism, it makes vandalism easier to manage because it's more contained. Less pages to monitor means less chance of vandalism slipping through the net. It's not just vandalism, though, any kind of "routine maintenance" is easier with fewer articles.
Yes, I perfectly understand the logic of your fallacy, and it works just as well with other types of routine maintenance. You have indeed come to understand that our vandals, like the rest of us, have only a limited amount of time to do what they do best. Deprive them of an article on which to perform their special magic, and they will certainly find another. When they redirect their activity those new targets too can be deleted, and if we take this to its logical conclusion eventually there will be no targets for the vandals.
It's also a logical conclusion that if you throw out the baby with the bathwater you will be saved from future requirements to bathe the baby.
Ec
On Feb 8, 2008 10:51 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Rolling stubs together into one list makes no sense. ..... And what is the benefit?
Less articles to worry about. That's why we delete things than a non-notable in the first place, as far as I can tell - they're not worth having an extra article to monitor for vandalism, etc.
In what way is it easier to monitor for vandalism? I don't see it. If anything, I'd think it'd be easier, actually. If someone vandalizes [[Davik Kang]] and someone else vandalizes [[Siri Tachi]] I'd rather have two entries in my watchlist than one (if I only had one I might actually miss the first bit of vandalism). And what if someone vandalizes the redirect? I don't see any validity to the argument that these mega-articles are easier to maintain.
Anthony wrote:
In what way is it easier to monitor for vandalism? I don't see it. If anything, I'd think it'd be easier, actually. If someone vandalizes [[Davik Kang]] and someone else vandalizes [[Siri Tachi]] I'd rather have two entries in my watchlist than one (if I only had one I might actually miss the first bit of vandalism). And what if someone vandalizes the redirect? I don't see any validity to the argument that these mega-articles are easier to maintain.
Makes reuse harder, too. Half of the article's history is hidden in the redirect from before the merge (or deleted, which is a copyvio) and the other half is mixed in with edits to all the other subsections of the omnibus article. If one wants to just reuse the material on one part of the omnibus one has to go on a revision history scavenger hunt to fully comply with the GFDL.