[WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 36, Issue 20

[Joseph Hiegel]

Jesse is, I think, right, inasmuch as those who create articles apropos of their otherwise non-notable and/or unverifiable companies, websites, or theories may well not perceive any promotional effect from the existence of their articles, and surely may not intend such promotion.  Many may read the injunctive message and think that it doesn't apply to his/her article because there is no promotional purpose and because (in his/her mind) the subject is notable.  I am rather confident that George W. Bush deeply and sincerely believes that his actions are in the best interests of the American people, notwithstanding that it seems altogether clear to me that they are often not; even if it's evident to most editors that a given website/theory/company/band is non-notable (or unverifiable), it may not be evident to those creating a page. 
   
  [[WP:AGF]] (and good sense) means, I think, that we oughtn't to classify as vandals those who create a page about a topic to which we'd imagine the injunctive message to refer.  Surely if one continues to create articles where he/she is cognizant of their "unencyclopedic" nature, "vandal" is an appropriate term; even if he/she doesn't intend to be disruptive, the effect of his/her actions is disruptive, and he/she has been apprised of such disruptive quality and elects (for whatever reason, most typically simple recalictrance) to continue editing in a manner to which the community are opposed.  
   
  One imperative message, though, isn't sufficient, in my mind, to ensure that a newbie well understands what is inappropriate for the encyclopedia, and I think many prospective valuable contributors could be lost by our dismissing straightaway and as "vandals" misguided or nescient new users.
   
  Joe
  [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 

"Daniel P. B. Smith" <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
  > From: Jesse W 
>

> \However, many bad pages created are not created in bad faith - the
> people who create them are not vandals. People who think the
> encyclopedia would benefit from an article on their novel theory of
> history, or their new company, or this fascinating new website they
> just came across - *are* *not* acting in bad faith, and *are* *not*
> intending to damage the 'pedia (although, in fact, they are), and so
> *are* *not* vandals.


When anyone who creates a new article, a message above the edit box 
is displayed which reads:

"Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about 
yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles created 
as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in 
accordance with our deletion policies."

Anyone who goes ahead anyway and creates an article promoting their 
new company most certainly _is_ acting in bad faith.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l