[WikiEN-l] Article Rescue Squadron: Combat medics urgently needed

[Steven Walling]

Th other thing that I notice about this project is that they neglect to
notice that completely unencyclopedic or original research  topics are often
chock-full of good writing and cobbled together citations. It's not just, or
even primarily, poorly written articles needing improvement that are
nominated as unencyclopedic. automatically going about and improving
articles under consideration for deletion as unencyclopedic assumes that not
only nominators possess poor judegement, but that the community at large is
so stupid as to not be able to recognize when a small or poorly written
article is worthy of encyclopedic treatment. The project's motto might as
well be "Let's help the morons with no vision!"

On 7/13/07, Steven Walling <steven.walling at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Unfortunately this is not always the case. AfD nominators are not
> perfect and are sometimes operating at least partly in ignorance about
> the subject of the article."
>
> So in other words, in urgin people to check every AFD,  the project
> assumes good faith and poor judgement, intelligence (or both) on the part of
> all nominators. that's even better.
> On 7/13/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > Steven Walling wrote:
> > > Articles are not "uncontroversially encyclopedic" when they being
> > brought up
> > > for deletion because of their lack of encyclopedic content or nature.
> >
> > Unfortunately this is not always the case. AfD nominators are not
> > perfect and are sometimes operating at least partly in ignorance about
> > the subject of the article.
> >
> > > A
> > > taskforce improving articles that don't have an AFD nomination would
> > be more
> > > in line with your flawed vision of what the project constitutes.
> >
> > That's what the rest of Wikipedia is already working on. Also, why are
> > you so sure that it's Phil's vision of the project that's flawed? Last I
> > checked there were only four edits on the project's page, it's still
> > quite nebulous and open to interpretation.
> >
> > > But when
> > > the project extensively mentions comabting what they see as
> > unnecessary
> > > deletions in its intro and includes a direct link to AFD, then it's
> > not a
> > > resource for improving articles that need help the most, but a project
> > for
> > > making sure borderline articles get kept. That's inclusioism.
> >
> > Not all AfDs result in delete, some result in keep. This alone should
> > indicate that not all nominations are "necessary." And besides, whether
> > an article is "borderline" or not is itself a subject that can often be
> > debated.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> >
>