On 9/23/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
On 23 Sep 2006, at 19:20, George Herbert wrote:
On 9/23/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
On 23 Sep 2006, at 18:36, George Herbert wrote:
On 9/23/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/09/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@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@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@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.
Would you be happy with as stub stating the existence of the organisation? Is this verifiable from secondary sources?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Happy? No, it should be a fleshed out, referenced article. That would make me happy.
Acceptable? Leave it as a stub with minimally verifyable information.
Bad? Leave info in it which is unverifyable and appears suspicious or spurious.
Worse? Keep it deleted.
All in my personal opinion, of course.