[WikiEN-l] Spoilers - Ned Scott's comment

[Gallagher Mark George]

G'day Joe,

> On 5/17/07, David Goodman <dgoodmanny at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > That however encourages canvassing, and groups protecting unworthy
> > articles, or  even attacking things that group dislikes. People 
> should> judge carefully enough to be able to say why it's stupid. ~~~~
> 
> True, but in some cases, it's overdone to throw out the "They're 
> voting!"phrase. It was pretty clear from the WP:SPOIL MfD that 
> most people were
> against it. If people are challenged in their statements, sure, 
> they should
> be able to back them up with a reason. The problem will eventually 
> happenwhen some troll dislikes a given set of opinions, and then 
> sets himself to
> challenging them all, to make it look like any who don't return to 
> defendtheir points aren't valid. Not saying any 'closing' types 
> are that stupid,
> but it's the appearance of poisoning their "!vote" I suppose.

There's nothing wrong with "some troll" (where "troll" means anyone we don't like) doing that, and the closer will just have to take that into account when closing.

It's all part of reading a discussion and trying to judge it.  If 20 people say "nn d" without giving further explanation, and one person says "He won the Nobel prize for nude mountaineering and was Prime Minister of Albania from 1975-1982", and proves it, how do you close?

If one person says, "this article is inaccurate and unverifiable, and this person wasn't that important in Albanian politics, never even ran for parliament" and proves it, and twelve others show up and say "That's a very good point, I agree it should be deleted" (but don't actually make their own argument), but seven other people show up to say "But he's got a cool name!  And he's dead sexy!  [fair use image]  Stop being such a big meanie!", then how do you close?

What if there's no clear answer from a vote-counting (not the supposedly necessary majority) or argument (nobody made a particularly strong argument) point of view, but those opposed to deletion are very passionate and obviously believe in their cause, while those who want it deleted just say "well, I haven't heard of it, so delete, I guess"?  What if the parties were the other way 'round, with the inclusionists not really caring ("keep, I guess, it's just a bit of fun") and the deletionists showing the passion?

(Bonus question: if 20 people are arguing on an AfD, and only one of them is an expert, which one do you go up to and say"provide a source or you're a liar!"?)


Cheers,

-- 
[[User:MarkGallagher]]