On 7/5/06, geni geniice@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Outdated.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.