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

[Nick Wilkins]

On 1/19/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/19/07, Ryzvel at 3mail.com <Ryzvel at 3mail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I was intrigued last year to find that somebody had deleted one of my
> > contributions on the grounds that the deletor [?] had never heard of it.
> > Acting on this criterion, I would spend my waking hours deleting
> Wikipedia
> > articles. Tim . . .
>
>
> Yes, that seems to hold a lot of weight in deletionist debates, someone
> who
> has never worked in the sciences never heard of a scientific concept and
> doesn't understand the underlying basics, but thinks the article should be
> deleted because it's on a concept they "had never heard of."
>
> KP



Are said articles sourced?  My experience (obviously, hardly a scientific
study here!) is that few articles with decent sources get nominated on the
grounds of the concept never having been heard of.  Recently I came across a
talk page request for external sources on an Olympics results page because
the requester had never heard of Olympic racewalking.  Perfectly reasonable,
and I wouldn't blame anyone for having their first reaction being thinking
that the page was a hoax--the idea of walking being an Olympic competition
made me boggle the first time I heard of it.

If articles on scientific concepts aren't sourced, it can be nigh impossible
for people to tell the difference between a hoax and an actual concept that
they just haven't heard of before.  Obviously, talk pages or
{{unreferenced}} tags would be my preferred first reaction in such a case,
but seeing the number of articles in the unreferenced category from December
2005 is daunting.

Of course, on the other hand, if referenced articles are getting nominated
because people haven't heard of them, such people should be gently reminded
to, you know, go read the source first.

-- Jonel