[WikiEN-l] Administrator coup / mass deletions

[David Goodman]

It is not that 80% of the problem was the totally unsourced articles,
and we are objecting because the entire problem was not dealt with.
More likely, it's that only 10 or 20% of the problem was dealt with,
or less. Wikipedia articles, including but not limited to BLPs, are
full of unsourced or marginally sourced statements that are truly
dubious, or pure opinion. Some will be harmful to the subject of the
article, but many more to those who want good information. on the
subject, which is actually just as bad.

What we have seen is an attempt at solving problems in the manner of
the proverbial drunk looking for his lost wallet under the lamp-post
because there's better light there. The discussion above is full of
examples that any reasonable person would want to at least do one
quick check on before deleting. Given that we accept Olympic athletes
as notable, any  plausible article claiming someone to be such is
worth the check.

I resent the charge above that those of us who object to the
proceedings are not willing to do the work ourselves. Speaking not
just for myself but for almost all of the other people who are
concerning themselves, we certainly do source as much as we can. What
we object to is other people not helping, because a few of us cannot
do it alone. I know I have gone into that backlog of unsourced BLPs
looking for a few articles to work on that seem worth the trouble.
It's not effective for one person to throw out whatever he can and
another to rescue--it is much better for the same person to do both,
because the same search will do -- and to facilitate the removals is
one of the two reasons I asked for adminship.

While half the admins at Wikipedia have been discussing this in
various places, the backlog at speedy is building up to a level rarely
seen on a weekday. Some of those really do need to be removed, much
more than the old BLPs. (Yes, I've been trying to be there also).

I am now facing the decision of what work I will need to not do  in
order to go back and rescue  the worst among the bad deletions already
done. I've a suggestion here: the people who wished to make a point
about the problem have certainly made a point. Now let them--they
themselves--prove the sincerity of their efforts by retracing their
steps and seeing what they can rescue.


David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG