[WikiEN-l] an ED article (was Featured Editors?)

[joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu]

Quoting Alec Conroy <alecmconroy at gmail.com>:

> On 11/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>> Sorry, but I absolutely do not accept that lack of an article on ED
>> is any kind of a problem at all.
>>
>> Not only is it a site of no obvious significance, anyone who wants
>> to find out about it can do so at the only place that actually gives
>> a shit, which is ED itself.
>
> Well, I'm not saying it's deletion was wrong-- I wasn't involved in
> it, so I'm totally going to accept that it was the appropriate
> response at the time.  If it's not notable, it's not notable, what can
> ya do?  Our content policies are our content policies-- we can't bend
> them just to combat the false impression that we're being suppressive.
>
> I'm just saying, the project will come off looking a whole lot better
> when or if ED is mentioned in enough reliable sources that we are able
> to write an article about it.   Having an article would be one more
> piece of ammunition we can steal from the critics and turn to an
> advantage.  Anyone who showed up accusing of us of suppressing our
> critics would have a giant shiny article we could point to where we
> could say "Oh yea??  well what is THAT article doing here then?"
>
> But, as good as that would look,  the decision to have or not have
> such an article should be made completely independent from
> "Wikipolitical" concerns-- which is why I haven't nominated a deletion
> review, or indeed, even made up my mind whether a reasonable article
> could have been written about ED.  I've never been to closely involved
> in deletion debates, if I started the recreation myself,  it'd be
> guilty of "improving wikipedia to prove a point" which itself is a
> problem.
>
> I'm just saying-- the day when an ED article can exist here while
> complyign with WP:V will be one that is very very good for Wikipedia,
> and I'll be happy when or if that time comes, as one more sign that
> our strength as an encyclopedia that we can neurtally cover
> EVERYTHING-- even those who attack us.  Writing the fairest, most
> objective article possible on ED would be the Wiki equivalent of
> turning the other cheek.

Maybe it is become I'm Jewish, but I've never been very in favor of 
turning the
other cheek. In any event, it doesn't meet [[WP:WEB]]. When it does we will
write an article on it. Put bluntly, until it does the ED people can cry until
they die of dehydration or lack of electrolytes (I don't know which 
would occur
first since tears have a high salt content) and it won't change our inclusion
criteria. It isn't a complicated situation.