On 20/07/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
That's probably right if you're only referring to demographic or racial groups. But in general, 15 year olds aren't "less worthy" just because they're 15, they're "less worthy" because their interests are less useful to us, and their powers of copywriting and collaborative editing are less good. On average.
I would say that this is nonsense. 15 year olds who chose to edit Wikipedia tend to not stand out as having different tastes to everyone else. At least, that is the case in my experience.
To say that any interests are "less useful to us" is nonsense. We have practically unlimited space and for this reason I deny we can ever really have too many factually accurate, verifiable articles on a particular subject. We can, of course, have too few articles on a given subject. For this reason, a common interest is not less useful to us, but a rare interest is more useful to us.
techie doesn't mean you're less of an editor than a wizened African. Every single person who wants to contribute should be welcomed with open arms, whether they intend to improve our coverage of Star Trek or the fine nuances of Bose-Einstein condensates at higher temperatures.
Sure. Some should be welcomed more than others :)
Yes, but no one should be less welcome than average.
Perhaps not. The current situation is that we are making editorial calls on what popular culture is worthy of an article. I would rather
With very little success.
Could you cite an example?
Are there still 15 year old star trek fans? I thought they were all in their 30s by now. Seriously though, are you rejecting the basic premise that there ought to be limits to how much fictional universe stuff we want? I was hoping we could at least get consensus on that.
I notice that every time I try to formalise the status quo, people think I'm trying to change it. This is interesting.
Admittedly, I had thought people were more deletionist than they appear to be. This is good news for the project.