On 10/22/05, Alphax <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 10/22/05, Daniel P. B. Smith
<dpbsmith(a)verizon.net> wrote:
One
wouldn't be a problem, and neither would ten thousand. We've got
thousands of articles on unremarkable cities, and I don't see a
problem with
that either.
Anthony
The Rambot articles shouldn't be compared to other topic classes that
contain articles on "non-notable" topics.
Taken as a group, the Rambot articles are _reasonably_ comprehensive
(they include virtually every U. S. city, not just a minuscule
percentage of them); uniform in style, content, and quality; and
derive from good (though uncited) sources.
If anything I think that only makes my point stronger. If we have the
resources to maintain an article on virtually every U.S. city, then
surely
we have the resources to maintain an article on a
tiny fraction of the
garage bands in the world.
Except that we actually have data that the subjects of the Rambot
articles existed (censuses and the like). We have no way of verifying
the existence of many garage bands.
I don't know why this agument keeps coming up because there's pretty much no
one who's arguing that we should keep articles on unverifiable garage bands.
The disagreement is over what to do with verifiable articles on garage
bands.
I have two or three reasons for deleting things: violates [[WP:NOT]]
(eg. dicdef, spam, advertisment), violates [[WP:NOR]]
(eg. lacks
references, terminal POV problems), or is a CSD. Lately I've tried to
work out where "article makes no claim of notability" and "article is
unverifiable" - I think NOR covers these, but there's probably some
overlap with WP:NOT as well.
Comparing Rambot articles to other topic classes
is perfectly fine as
long
as you limit your comparison to the proper
aspects. Frankly, I think the
uniformity in style, content, and quality is a bad thing, but that
wasn't
related to the thread I was making the comparison
in.
I don't. Uniformity in articles in a certain topic area is a Good Thing,
because it lets readers (and editors) know what the article /should/ be
like. We have the Manual of Style so that articles are presented in a
logical manner; David Gerard has made much better arguments than I ever
could about why we need a uniform and concise writing style.
Take a look at the unedited Rambot articles then take a look at the ones
which have been heavily edited. Now tell me which you think the articles
*should* be like.
I think the whole style, content and scope debate is best summed up as:
articles in Wikipedia should be Sane, Safe and
Consensual.
- --
Alphax | /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \