[WikiEN-l] Process wonkery

[Stephen Streater]

On 23 Sep 2006, at 18:36, George Herbert wrote:

> On 9/23/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 23/09/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The problem with the DRV is that the existence of a number of votes
>>> from obdurate "all schools are inherently notable" types means that
>>> vote counting gives no consensus, whereas a comparison of arguments
>>> from policy - specifically verifiability and hence the ability to
>>> cover the subject objectively - shows a clear delete.
>>
>>
>> This is a hardened attitude formed by people on VFD as it was who
>> wanted to delete all schools from Wikipedia below the notability  
>> level
>> of Eton. That is: the process was pathological on both sides.
>>
>> So let's assume every school will be in Wikipedia on the same basis
>> that every pissweak or even no-longer-existent hamlet in the US will
>> remain. What can be done then?
>>
>> * Is existence enough? Evidently.
>> * So we need proof of existence and basic verifiable information.
>>
>> There should be enough for a stub at the very least. If you want to
>> turn it into a list entry instead, the redirect needs to be in the
>> appropriate place.
>>
>> If you're bringing this to wikien-l to re-fight the school deletion
>> wars, you're probably not spending your time well.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> Just for reference, we're looking at a worst case roughly 124,000
> school stubs ( http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/ 
> dt04_085.asp
> ) for the US.
>
> I understand those that disagree, but I think the categorical include
> pseudopolicy for schools makes sense.  They're of immense interest to
> most parents, the school system has 72 million odd Americans in it,
> and categorical inclusionism here is not in any way throwing Wikipedia
> into disrepute or threatening our server load or diskspace.

I don't the issue is technological. It's more to
do with the reliability of the information.

The idea is that a smaller encyclopaedia with
reliable information is better than one twice as
big where (a possibly unknown) half of the
information is unreliable.