On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 7:42 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
If so, then even in what we think we do best, we are
incomplete. It's
time to stop worrying about having too much; we have too little. I'm
sure there are hundreds of shows from the early years of television
that need treatment. I know there are hundreds of classic novels that
are merely mentioned in a list.
I have a suggestion: nobody be permitted to propose deleting more
articles than they create, or removing more content than they write
afresh.
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 11:25 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Judson Dunn wrote:
Anyway, I much prefer Utility as a criteria.
Would people use an
article about cholesterol, yes. Would they use one about Bulbasaur?
yes. Would they use one about a Leica D-lux 3, yes. Would they use one
about every fire hydrant in Pancake, TX? No.
Luckily this is solved by our other inclusion policies already, it
would be trivial to find reliable sources for the first three, much
harder, if it's even possible, for the fourth. We don't really need
any new policy, we just need to get rid of notability for good.
Certainly, we may
find it difficult to imagine that anyone might find a
reliable source for those fire hydrants, but if they do we must respect
that.
So there really is a place called Pancake, Texas (population 11), but we
don't even mention it in our article on [[Coryell County, Texas]], or
even that the post office was once named "Bush". I haven't checked if
we have articles on Pancake, PA or Pancake, WV, or the historical
Pancake, NV.
Ec
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Or, how about no one being allowed to put in text or create articles
without removing or proposing for deletion a corresponding amount of
text or number of articles?
Wait, such an arbitrary standard sounds ludicrous? Well...yes, it
does! Good editors cut and prune, they don't just add. You still want
to have -something- left, but preferably that something will have
unimportant and redundant bits trimmed down or removed entirely. Most
TV shows, for example, are great in list format. You have the whole
thing in one article, allowing for easy navigation, and you don't have
the overlong plot summaries, original research and speculation, and
"In popular culture" sections that plague full articles on the things.
Well, now we're good! We DO include information on them, we just don't
overdo it or do more than we can without turning it to crap and
sacrificing quality. Quality over quantity anyday.
It's time for MORE cutting, not less. One takes garbage to the can and
gets rid of it, and it shouldn't take a five-day debate to do that.
--
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.