This attempt to encourage change is based on your personal point of view that a shift in the majority consensus on what is acceptable for encyclopedic treatment, which might create the temporary wave of deletions now occuring, is a bad thing inherently.
On 7/13/07, Ben Yates ben.louis.yates@gmail.com wrote:
Excuse me for trying to encourage change.
On 7/13/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l