Does it matter? Can we just end the thread without pinning the blame on anyone. It is not just this one thread, I had just noticed the en.WP conversations on a major increase lately.
Birgitte SB
--- James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah... I was wondering meself why Danny posted this English Wikipedia info on the Foundation List.
On 9/30/06, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
I do agree with Gerad's ideas, but I also think
this
is not the place to be discussing what en.WP
speedy
deletion criteria should or should not be. I have heard en.WP has an entire mailing list all to
itself.
Birgitte SB
--Gerad's message-- Hoi, We should before we want to even consider policies whereby sources are required consider what it would do to other
projects.
Many of the other projects do not have the maturity to follow the
lead
of the English Wikipedia they do not have sufficient content and burdening the content creation with this zeal would put a damper on the creation of new content. The idea that the English language
sources
are universally good is problematic as well.
We should also consider how much work it is to
source
all the unsourced articles. I assume that the amount of time
involved is
such that it is not even feasible to source all English articles
that
do not have sources in half a year. When an article has one source, it does not follow that the article is sufficiently sourced. Uncompletely sourced articles are as bad or worse than articles that
have
not been sourced at all.
I am afraid I could not disagree with you more.
Thanks, GerardM
James Hare wrote:
Well, if we make it a new criterion, we
shouldn't
apply it retroactively. I
understand there was a time when sources didn't
mean
as much.
As for the unsourced articles that currently
exist,
we could do some very
long PROD deal with it -- articles tagged as
having
zero sources have three
months to get at least ONE SOURCE for any part
of
the article before it
qualifies for speedy. That's a generous amount
of
time.
On 9/30/06, George Herbert
george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/30/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com
wrote:
Let's mkae a new speedy criterion: if there's
no
sources, nuke it. With
fire.
On 9/30/06, daniwo59@aol.com
wrote:
I have just deleted an article,
[[Porchesia]].
Any admins are welcome
to
read the history. It was created in November.
Problem is, there is no such place.
Hmmm.
Danny
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/l
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com