On 1/19/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote:
If the concept is in the sciences and the person is
nominating it simply
because they've never heard of it, how can they tell if the source is
worthwhile? I didn't even know what to say to someone who nominated one
article recently, on a subject the nominator had obviously never heard
of, on the basis that the nominator questioned how sea levels could
possibly
rise if there was less water held in the ice caps, or maybe he/she was
questioning the amount of the rise. I don't think having the nominator
read
the source would have helped much. On the other hand, it appears the
article writer hadn't gotten anywhere near a source, either....
I'm finding a few problems with sources on articles. People don't realize
you can't copy entire sentences from the article ("well, I only copied a
few
sentence, and never two in a row...."), and that you can't say the article
said something it didn't. If the article said he started studying singing
seriously at the age of 10, you can't say he started singing at 10. Maybe
it's the Masson/New Yorker method of quoting in the latter case.
How can anyone possibly nominate an article dealing with particle physics
for deletion, thinking it is a hoax, if they know nothing about quantum
mechanics? I personally thought quantum mechanics was a hoax until I
studied it. I think if you know nothing about an area, you aren't
qualified
to decide to use time resources of other editors by nominating an AfD
because YOU don't know anything about it. Why not just ask someone in the
area? Need a geology editor, go to the geology page, look a bunch of
edits
and ask someone. But don't say, "I don't know anything about the subject,
so I never heard of most of it, but really never heard of this, so I think
it should be deleted." It's absurd and wastes time and resources.
Race walking. Yeah, right.
KP
What, the sea-level can rise? I don't believe you! ;-)
But seriously, it sounds as if in that case an unsourced article that needed
plenty of work got improved because it was nominated for deletion. Which is
the typical result for deserving topics that get nominated, for whatever
reason. I wouldn't consider that a waste of time. There may be more
long-run efficient ways of going about improving articles, but none that
gather more immediate results.
Personally, I agree with you on what people *should* do when they come
across an article about something they have never heard about and doubt the
veracity of. No matter what the subject area.
As for non-experts being able to tell if sources are worthwhile, I'm not
really sure what you're getting at. What I'm saying is that even nominators
who think "I've never heard of this" is a valid reason for deletion are
typically just reasonable enough to realize that if there is a source,
there's probably ''something'' to the topic. They are far less likely
to
make the nomination in that case. The article may still be complete crap
based on junk sources, but that is something that requires knowledgeable
editors' eyes in any case and an AfD nomination, regardless of purported
reason, will bring those.
-- Jonel