On Tuesday 21 October 2003 03:18 pm, Gareth Owen wrote:
erik_moeller(a)gmx.de (Erik Moeller) writes:
Cutting down fluff and POV language which is
inevitable when using direct
quotes -- sure. Removing facts -- no way.
Really? If I had verifiable facts (from a published Diary, say) that Tony
Benn had toast and marmalade for breakfast on the 3rd of March, 1967, and
added it to the article, that would be OK and -- how wiki is this --
*irremovable*.
What rubbish.
I think Erik's intent was quite clearly to say that that no factual
information pertinent to the subject should be removed, with which I agree.
The example you cite is rubbish, not Erik's argument.
There is no size limit on Wikipedia.
To remove useful information ...
At the third reiteration, the information ceases to be useful, or
interesting. How many times do you wish to cite sources stating that the
Missionaries Of Charity took in a lot of money and were pretty shifty about
where it went?
If it is true, as you claim, that something is repeated three times, then
surely the removal of two of those instances does not remove factual and
pertinent information?
This point is made about 5 times in the article, each time with a lengthy
direct quotation from a different secondary source.
The section "Improper and undisclosed use of funds" could be precis'd into
about 6 sentences and no useful information would be lost. Similarly, both
lengthy quotations in "Secret Baptisms" could be summarised in about 40
words, including attributions.
Then why don't you do it? If you think that something is wrong with the
article you can change it. (Remember, this is a wiki)
As a bonus, neither section would then read like it
was written by an 3rd
grader with attention-deficit disorder.
Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc