On 9/23/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater(a)mac.com> wrote:
On 23 Sep 2006, at 18:36, George Herbert wrote:
On 9/23/06, David Gerard
<dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 23/09/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG
<guy.chapman(a)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(a)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.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The existence of the school in question has been verified, as I understand it.
Nuking the article because one can't verify some other information in
the article is nonsense. If it's not completely verifyable and you
have some particular question as to its accuracy, then tagging it with
unverified, then editing out the info in extremis, are the established
thing to do.
This incident worries me. Nothing personal to you, Guy, or Cyde Weys,
but there's an established consensus on schools. Just because you've
been around for a long time and are admins doesn't mean you can game
the procedures to delete something which consensus says should stay.
Complaining when people kick back and complain about it is ... nice
chutzpah?
This is part of the problem I had with Tony, back six months ago.
It's fine to be bold. But the limit of being bold has to be when
consensus kicks back and complains about what you just did. If your
reaction when consensus kicks back is "process wonkery sucks" then
there is a problem.
Trying to undo a consensus via admin guerilla warfare, nicking little
slices off it here and there, is not a good way to fix things, and
particularly not a good way to establish positive admin/general editor
populace relations.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com