On 20/10/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
Our articles on fictional characters are
cesspools of fancruft,
original research, and outright idiocy. This should be a clear call
to the fact that we do not have sufficient control over these
articles.
In this incident we had two copyvio articles and a bunch of unattributed
images. It's not at all clear how you're progressing from that to the
conclusion that all of Wikipedia's fictional character articles are so
out-of-control that they need to be "nuked."
I think Phil is speaking from having read numerous fictional character
articles, not implying that his feelings stem from this incident. (I
happen to agree with him; the amount of blithering fancruft is
astonishing.)
We need to
demonstrate our lack of tolerance with a zeal
previously known only to BLP.
Wikimedia Foundation could get sued for having "fancruft" in articles
about fictional characters? Or having fancruft could somehow ruin the
lives of fictional characters? Those are the reasons for BLP but I don't
see any similar level of importance for fictional character articles.
Again, I think you're misreading Phil's point, namely that we should
be as ruthless at eliminating fancruft as we are at BLP issues, not
that fancruft is causing the same problems as BLP issues.
--
Earle Martin
http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/