[WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

It is hard to cooperate when people are taking mass action and showing you
the middle finger. They only seek a discussion when they are either cornered
or when the presence of a discussion make them look "legit". I or anyone
should not be living with a group of self righteous individuals or groups
who interpret policy as they see fit. It is arbcoms role to stop such
disruption. Only after that can there be fruitful discussions - when the
disruption ceases.
Either people mass removing content are being disruptive or people getting
in the way. Cause you cannot have two conflicting consensus at the same
time. That would be a lack of consensus!  No mater how you look at it, there
is no consensus on the matter which is a default keep not a default delete.

I think there is an ironic self conflicting nature of this issue. Presence
of slur and misinformation on "important" articles has legal consequences.
This is why we have a [[WP:BLP]] policy which was drafted as a continuation
of policies like [[WP:V]], and [[WP:RS]]. In the case of "important"
articles we need immediate action.

Policies like [[WP:BLP]] does not apply to "unimportant" articles because
there are no urgent reasons to address various [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]
issues. Someone is yet to explain me the irgency prompting mass deletion.

I guess it is a philosophical situation. What do you do to an article that
isn't "perfect". Do you delete it or improve it? Or let someone else improve
it.

-- White Cat

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:12 AM, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 5:03 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > What harms  the public view of Wikipedia is not articles on minor
> > subjects, or on matters i anyone will understand are of significance
> > only to fans. What really harms the perceived quality of  Wikipedia is
> > promotional and inaccurate articles. almost everyone can realize that
> > the content of a reference work may  include things they do not
> > themselves want--but they do expect it to be both honest and accurate.
> >
> > We could decide either for or against the detailed coverage of popular
> > culture, but what we cannot tolerate  is the diversion of effort in
> > dealing with this. There is of course an obvious solution, which is to
> > silence everyone who does not agree with me, but that's not going to
> > fly. What we need is some way of not just forming a compromise but
> > having it persist--otherwise any solution will be back to the same
> > point in a few months. Arb com apparently does not think it is capable
> > of this, but I don't see how else it can be done--they should try a
> > little more boldness. Since they'll be criticised whatever they choose
> > to do or not to do, they might as well decide.
> >
>
> Arbcom isn't supposed to be there to make policy.
>
> The diversion of effort dealing with this has been part of a long drawn out
> war over inclusionism or deletionism.  Which has never settled to a
> consensus.
>
> Your belief that we cannot tolerate the diversion of effort is common, but
> also *extremely* dangerous...  This is a community, the community is
> divided, has some fairly fundamental disagreements over what it wants to
> be,
> and the politics and dynamics and discussion over those fundamental
> disagreements are how we stay one community and avoid forking or driving
> away a large part of the community.
>
> Part of the problem here is that we have two sets of idealists (purist
> exclusionists, who think that non-serious topics should not be considered,
> and purist inclusionists, who think that everything must be), who naturally
> talk past each other as they have fundamental goals disagreements, combined
> with two sets of realists (realist inclusionists who are deleting primarily
> over quality and RS issues, and realist inclusionists who favor the
> gradualist approach on article quality and prefer to work on article
> quantity for the time being) who are talking past each other when they
> could
> engage more productively.
>
> Along with many in the middle who wish no part in duking it out.
>
> Perhaps there is fruitful discussion to be had in getting the two realist
> camps to cooperate.  There is nothing gained among either realist camp by
> denying that a number of the popular culture articles have been woefully
> badly sourced and unencyclopedic, or in denying that popular culture
> articles are popular and desired by a lot of article editors (and
> presumably
> readers, assuming that readership follows editorship interest trends).
>
> Coming to a cooperative resolution of the "Delete vs Improve" problem would
> get us enough of the way there that setting both the purist camps on fire
> and hearing the lament of their women would become a credible and possibly
> legitimate way to solve the problem.
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>