Further to MGM's point, as we get more popular, more attention will be paid to us and we cannot afford to carry thousands of bad articles if we can avoid it.
Last week, we had editors of a Dartmouth campus newspaper try and sneak in an article about molecular economics and its supposed founder. It was picked up in AfD and deleted. If it had not been picked up, we would have had more embarrassing publicity.
In earlier years, the Siegenthaler incident would not have received nearly as much attention. We need to ensure quality control issues receive more attention not less.
Regards.
Keith Old
Keith Old User:Capitalistroadster On 12/9/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see how you can refer to 5000 articles that need deletion as being equivalent to something as positive as growth.
What you are forgetting is that such articles can be found by Google and thus by readers. Those 5000 articles will damage not only Wikipedia's credibility, but also use Wikipedia resources.
Also, quite a lot of them would simply be against basic policy, yet not speediable, meaning we'd basically being allowing stuff in against policy, which others would see as a reason to drop in more.
Ignoring a problem won't make it go away.
Mgm _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l