[WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

[Tony Jacobs]

>From: Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
>Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:26:59 -0800 (PST)
>
>On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Jeff Raymond wrote:
> > This is when we start looking incredibly dumb as an organization when we
> > delete articles about subjects that obviously exist, are obviously well
> > know, and are actually verifiable, but because we can't bring ourselves 
>to
> > trust a source that isn't available in dead tree form somewhere, we 
>won't
> > have the article.  Doesn't make a lot of sense.
>
>This sounds like a classic example of stretching the wrong rule because the
>right rule doesn't exist.  It happens a lot in the real legal system, and
>usually causes more problems than it solves because once you've stretched a
>rule to cover the case, that becomes a precedent to interpret the rule in
>that manner forever.  (See: Commerce Clause.)
>
>WP:RS is already broken, especially when it comes to not allowing web and
>other self-published sources for non-academic subjects.  If you want to 
>delete
>the GNAA article, I suggest either using Ignore All Rules to delete it, or
>coming up with a new rule.  I suggest a rule something like "A Wikipedia
>article may be deleted if merely creating and publicizing a neutral article
>advances the goal of the article's subject."  (Of course a full version of
>the rule would have to be worded more carefully so you don't delete 
>articles
>about Wikipedia itself.)
>

Any organization that benefits from publicity is advanced by having a 
Wikipedia article; such a "rule" sounds dangerous, even if carefully worded.

Your contention, that a rule is being stretched here, only really makes 
sense if one has already accepted your second contention, that WP:RS is 
broken.  I think I understand that perspective, but I tend to adopt a 
different one.  I don't see WP:RS (and WP:V) as broken, so much as defining 
our scope.  I guess if one thinks the floor should be three feet lower, the 
current floor would seem broken, but I like the height it's at now.  There 
are other sources for information that doesn't meet our inclusion standards 
- Wikipedia isn't trying to be all sources, nor should it.

I guess the floor metaphor is oversimple.  It's more like our floor is 
multi-level, and people are arguing over whether there are holes in it that 
should be filled in, or whether those holes *are* the floor.  I say fill 'em 
in and let the underground be documented by those who document the 
underground; they exist.


Tony/GTBacchus

_________________________________________________________________
View Athlete’s Collections with Live Search 
http://sportmaps.live.com/index.html?source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=MGAC01