[WikiEN-l] Rampant Deletionism

[James Duffy]

>
>Gareth Owen wrote:
> > Are you seriously suggesting that the late Mr. Bowman, Eagle Scout
> > and computer specialist is a reasonable target for an article in an
> > encyclopedia.
>
>Jimbo replied:
>In wikipedia, I would say 'yes, unquestionably, absolutely'.  Wiki Is
>Not Paper.  In wikipedia 1.0 for print/dvd, etc., then we will face
>constraints that we don't face on wikipedia proper.
>
>I wouldn't have much interest in working on such an article, but I see
>absolutely no problem with it.

I am flabbergasted. Those articles are so far from the principles of 
encyclopedic content as to be mindboggling. I am more than a little 
surprised that Jimbo could see /any/ justification /whatsoever/ for keeping 
them. The absence of paper is nothing to do with it. There are certain 
things that are utterly and completely irrelevant to encyclopedias. Follow 
Jimbo's argument about paper and should a medical book about colon cancer 
also include articles on Manchester United, a biography of George Bush also 
mention mosquitos, a non-paper book on Napoleon's sex life mention DW's 
edits of sports pages on wikipedia?

Would they do so? Of course not.  A medical book or a biography only can 
contain what is relevant, irrespective of whether there is room to contain 
something else. Ditto with encyclopedias. The above articles have no 
relevance to encyclopedic content. Normal coverage of atrocities don't even 
mention each individual victims, let alone give them /individual/ 
biographical entries that tell us they were a disco-dancer. What next? 
Include details of how long Tsar Nicholas like to grow his nail on his left 
big toe? Give details of who made Eamon de Valera's glasses? Discuss the 
weaving pattern used to make Mother Teresa's garments. Come of it. That 
approach would be to encyclopedias what the Muppet Show is to studying 
animal husbandry.
>
> > If so, then there is such little common ground between what we think
> > belongs in an encyclopedia, that further discussion is worthless.
> > I'd be intrigued to see the opinions of others.
>
>O.k., there's mine.  :-) But I hope that further discussion is not
>really worthless.
>

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963