An good article that is properly defended is less likely to be
deleted. I have seen many worthy articles fail because there are no
outside references, and the claims are either exorbitant or mild. You
can not expect others to know, unless you tell them.
On 1/13/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Ian Tresman wrote:
Technically all Wikipedia editors are outside their
field since they
are all generally anonymous. That leaves common sense which is
generally described in WP:NOTABLE.
That is a remarkably illogical non-sequitur. Being anonymous does not
imply that one loses all connection with his fields of interest.
No, it means that it is not verifiable.
I've invited experts in their field to contribute their expertise to
Wikipedia, only to have it vetoed by an anonymous editor who claim to
be a professor and an expert in his field.
You would think that two verifiable experts in their field would have
sway over an anonymous unverifiable editor.
This makes so little sense that I wonder whether we are talking about
the same thing. What I have been talking about is having editors with a
common interest having the strongest influence on determining the
notability of an article. This has nothing to do with inviting experts
to contribute. It has to do with ignoramuses using their cookie-cutter
interpretation of notability (or verifiability ) to delete articles
about which they know nothing.
Ec
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.