Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 08/02/2008, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge(a)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