[WikiEN-l] I'm disappointed in Wikipedia.

[MacGyverMagic/Mgm]

On 6/11/07, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 6/11/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/10/07, The Mangoe <the.mangoe at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 6/10/07, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Interesting thought there;  perhaps it would be much better if we
> had
> > > > standards for minimum article quality but made efforts to help
> > > > articles pass them, rather than trying to fail them.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, but I think just the opposite. If you cannot put in at
> > > least one sentence which gives a reason why the article should be
> > > included, you shouldn't put it in and expect someone else to dig up
> > > that reason for you. That seems to be the primary reason we have to
> > > have an AfD process: too many people write articles on stuff that they
> > > think is self-evidently notable. Since it isn't, it gets put through
> > > AfD to force someone to put up a real reason. I don't think there's
> > > anything wrong with this, other than people write this kind of article
> > > in the first place instead of providing the notability themselves.
> >
> > What about the people who WANT to fix articles like that  like the
> person
> > who started this thread. We have cleanup processes. No one asked if
> > someone
> > wanted to fix it. They just played the numbers game. It's not the amount
> > of
> > Google hits that count.
>
>
> I tend to agree with this, in that my standards for what is a useful
> starting point are lower than most.
>
> But if something really has no sources at all, does having anything really
> help someone who wants to "fix" it?  I do feel there's a minimum level of
> effort a contributor should make in order for an article to be kept.


Articles usually lack sources because  the ccreators are clueless newbies.
That  doesn't mean there aren't any or that the subject isn't suitable.