Um, so what exactly are you proposing is the procedure here? I should just rely on my (your?) judgment about when NPOV is being trumped by community lack of consensus?
I think [[Category:Soviet spies]] should be trashed. 95% of the people in the category were never charged much less convicted. Most of them have a name which appears on some cryptic NSA file but that deserves a category of "Listed by the NSA as a spy" or something like that.
I think that the community (lack of) consensus was affected by a small horde of POV-pushers rallied for the occasion.
So... should I just take it upon myself to delete it? That would raise nothing but hell. I'm not interested in that. Do we have mechanisms set up for this? Or is it the Ed Poor, "delete first, figure out the politics of it later" strategy?
FF
On 12/6/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Steve Block wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
JAY JG wrote:
I've been have a months-long debate with another editor on this topic. I've been stating that we include people in "Criminals" categories if they have been convicted of a crime by an independent judiciary. The other editor insists that we have to decide (by some means) whether or not they have actually committed a crime, conviction is not enough a good enough yardstick. I'd be interested in other thoughts here.
I have a simple thought. My simple thought is that of course you are right. :-)
I agree with you, but community consensus doesn't. I recently tried to get the criminal categories renamed to include the words convicted but was told that was unworkable since Butch Cassiday was never convicted, or something. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_Nove...
Well, I guess community consensus trumps NPOV ... except of course it doesn't. That would get a "don't be dense" category deletion.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l