[WikiEN-l] We need a policy against vote-stacking

[Cheney Shill]

geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

    On 5/6/06, Steve Bennett wrote:
    > For exactly the same reason I think it is very poor for us to have
    > 900,000 (or more?) inactive user accounts. They don't harm us directly
    > - but they do vastly misrepresent the actual state of the project.

    Every free internet forum has the same issue.

Few free interent "forum"s are encyclopedias.

    > Speaking for myself, the existence of Pokemon is not directly a
    > problem. But Wikipedia would certainly be better off if somehow all
    > the effort that was expended on Pokemon articles was somehow invested
    > in other ways.

    Pokemon are massive. How many pokemon can you name? How many uk canals
    (my area) can you name?

I agree with Steve.  My solution would be as I stated in "pedia split".  Both groups would be happy.  Both would have admins interested and dedicated in them.  It's really not a question of what's huge at the moment.  It's more a question of WP:NOT and how they fit into the sum of the world's knowledge.  I'm sure there are elements of Pokemon that still deserve coverage by an encyclopedia, such as story and animation techniques and its impact on children, the economy, etc.  Leave that here.  Move the rest to Wikipop or whatever brand name you'd like to give it.  If nothing else, 99% of the disputes over whether [insert 15-minute celebrity is encyclopedic or not would go away.  That seems like a significant enough benefit to pursue.~~~~Pro-Lick



		
---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.