[Foundation-l] Porchesia

[Birgitte SB]

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 at 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 at 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 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 9/30/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Let's mkae a new speedy criterion: if there's
> no
> > sources, nuke it.
> > With
> > >>> fire.
> > >>>
> > >>> On 9/30/06, daniwo59 at aol.com
> <daniwo59 at 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 at 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 at wikimedia.org
> >
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at 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