[Wikipedia-l] Why oh why resurrect nonarticles????

koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Wed Aug 28 12:29:36 UTC 2002


I guess I can withstand anger better than you.  ;-)

Really, by that token, we should keep as "articles" pages with nothing more than "L3337 HAX0r 0WnZ u" and "x person is a jackass."  What's the point?  "Hubba hubba hubba" is an encyclopedia article exactly why?  /Any/ well-titled page vandalized to contain content, where it previously had none, could become an article just by virtue of the title.  So what?  I'm not against subpar work, which IMO can always be improved, but I am against deliberate dreck.

We certainly need to clarify that rule on deletion--does it condone it or not?  Why would it not?  (Suppose we get a scripted /vandalism/ attack?  Will we just blank all the pages?)

kq

Andre wrote:
>Someone got angry with me because I deleted subjects that could become
>articles. So I resurrected them. Now people get angry at me because I did
>that. So, what should I do then? It seems that the only way not to do
>something wrong is to do nothing at all.
>
>Please, either have a SINGLE set of rules that at least has no rules that
>are conflicting, or have no rules at all. This is making me angry and sick
>(literally).








More information about the Wikipedia-l mailing list