Yes, but some of those really bad articles will become good articles
if you spend enough time on them.
Deletion short-circuits that.
In a perfect world, with perfect AFDs it wouldn't matter. In the real
world, with real world AFDs it does.
On 04/11/2009, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 6:41 AM, Ryan Delaney
<ryan.delaney(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Well, now you've given me another guess: The
problem with PWD is that it's
wrong to have deleted material available for people to look at because
that
would encourage them to look at deleted content rather than undeleted
material?
(I haven't read the PWD proposal, but it seems self-explanatory.)
Deletion is good because it totally dispenses with junk. Average
article quality goes up when we ditch bad articles. It prevents people
from spending time on really bad articles. Having deleted articles
readily available would interfere with all that. There are places on
the internet for all kinds of junk, regardless of quality or value.
Wikipedia is not one.
Steve
_______________________________________________
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
--
-Ian Woollard