On 7/5/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Almost any
form of edit count or tenure weighing would leave this a
clear consensus for delete.
Evidences?
What criteria would you consider acceptable?
in any case your current account doesn't appear to
have any edits pre
21 March 2005
Um, I was editing frequently in November 2004 at the latest, if my
contribs don't reflect that then there has been dataloss, but I don't
see how thats material. I'm not proposing that we treat people like
you with over 9k edits, and me with over 20k edits across accounts and
projects, or me who was active since the end of 2004 and you since the
beginning of 2004 differently.
Whats an edit? Whats a day? It's likely that you've put more work into
each of your edits than I have into mine... or perhaps it's likely
that I spent more hours of each of my days thinking about or working
on Wikimedia projects than you. No one can say.
I'm suggesting we treat users with zero edits, with 50 edits, with 100
edits, with different consideration from users with months of
experience. Is that so hard to accept? Can you honestly say that
there is reason to automatically assume someone with 50 article edits
has any real experience unless they tell us so? Or are you you too a
proponent of the "Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia... it's an
experiment in extreme democracy" school of thought?
Sure, all of us were new at some point... and quite a few of the
things I said early on were a waste of other people's time, if not
just overtly stupid. Had I been named supreme ruler of Wikipedia in
my first week I would have no doubt screwed up it far worse than if I
were named supreme ruler today. If you don't believe the same is true
of you, you need to take a look in the mirror and go find a good dose
of humble.
Outdated.
Cite? There is also a single Dutch newspaper. I too have been a part
of fluff stories in the press, do I get an article now?
With that in
mind, how can you claim
that the article isn't an attempt to spread an idea as opposed to
merely documenting already popular idea?
because all the pop culture centres of the internet have already been hit.
Wikipedia
The Free Pop culture centre of the internet that anyone can edit
Doesn't quite have the same ring to it. :) :)
There is a whole great big wide world out there beyond the internet,
slashdot, and blogs... I know that a lot of Wikipedians have a hard
time accepting it.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone hold the view that every single
piece of tripe that shows up as page filler in any print rag, or every
bit of glurge that blasts across a few million readerless blogs,
belongs in Wikipedia. And yet we see these argued as solid reasons
whenever they make an easy argument to preserve the existence of the
arguers personal navel lint.