[WikiEN-l] Let's not call imperfections "broken"

[Daniel P. B. Smith]

> From: Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net>
>
> We deleted
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_big-bust_models_and_performers
> due to sourcing issues.  It was overturned at DRV without the sourcing
> issues ever being addressed.  It was relisted and speedy kept.  It
> still has sourcing issues.
>
> What is "big"?  Where is the external source that defines "big"?  What
> sources are used to include the individuals concerned?  No sources are
> cited.  The lead of the article is original research and the contents
> is "phwooooar! look at the tits on that!"
>
> It is always dispiriting when an article that reduces the average
> quality of the project is kept in this way...

I voted to delete this article. I think it's a steaming pile... or at  
least a wobbly mound.

But please, I really, really, REALLY wish that people would ease up  
on the hyperbole. A case where one specific article or edit is  
handled inappropriately does not mean that the process is broken.

"List of big-bust models and performers" is somewhere reasonably near  
the borderline. _I_ happen to think it's well outside, but, you know,  
pressure from groups of people can and does shift the borderline for  
articles where there are "special interests." There is also a  
consistent tendency to apply lower standards for articles that are  
"fun" and that invite casual participation by non-expert users.

In Wikipedia, as in life, it's not reasonable to expect that the best- 
functioning processes will work perfectly and discriminate flawlessly  
on razor sharp bright-line boundaries.