[WikiEN-l] editorial oversight, re: afd, fac, etc.

[K P]

On 1/13/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 09:10:29 -0800, "K P" <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The overall problem though is that there are guidelines and they're
> ignored
> >in favor of deletionists proposing articles for deletion because of their
> >poor quality regardless of the subject, or for a dozen other reasons not
> >related to suggested guidelines for deletion (the play only opened a week
> >ago so the article should be deleted).
>
> There is no such thing as a deletionist, only different levels of
> inclusionism.  If you think you are an inclusionist, go and visit
> [[Special:Newpages]], a.k.a. the Firehose of Crap.
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


There do tend to be a handful of editors nominating many articles for
deletion, and another handful voting keep on all of these regardless of
their crap level.

There is a lot of crap on Wikipedia, and it bothers me.  I suggested an
article on a serious encyclopedia worthy topic (thermal optima) be deleted
until something worthwhile is put up, after trying to write something
without research (my first such Wikipedia attempt), because I was concerned
about the accuracy.  It is better, imo, better to get rid of an article
rather than keep an inaccurate one--always get rid of inaccuracies. Newpages
are rather disheartening.

Many topics on Wikipedia have to be considered entirely on their own merits,
and this is hard to do, set policies with meaning, and acknowledge that
policies can't be applied to everything, and encourage editors to both
consider policies, and weigh whether something is an exception.  Many AfD
also need some background research as to whether or not they should be
deleted--not internet research.  I don't have any solutions.

KP