Even so there exits people who mass remove (redirectify/merge/delete - take your pick) content. Mass creation isn't that big of a deal. Junk can always be dealt with. Junk has never been a serious issue as the definition of junk has been rock solid all along. A problem has emerged when people decided to expand the definition of junk to include entire categories of articles without securing a consensus for it.
An elite group of self righteous users does not add up to such a consensus. If such people truly cared about the well being of the encyclopedia they would have spent the time to secure the consensus before taking action.
The issue surrounding fiction related articles and other unimportant topics needs a resolution and I am willing to settle with any kind of resolution at this point.
-- White Cat
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.comwrote:
On 10/01/2009, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting... But the actual point of this thread remains unanswered.
- White Cat
The real underlying problem is that no one has any defensible bright line as to what the scope of an encyclopedia is.
Somebody clever may be able to find one though. Perhaps some sort of points system or statistically based technique could be devised.
-- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be much better.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l