On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Ken Arromdee <arromdee(a)rahul.net> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Adam Koenigsberg wrote:
I oppose this mass deletion but support the
theory behind it, that is to
say, I would support this deletion criteria but believe this to be out of
process. Being Bold doesn't extend to administrator tools, IMHO. This
reminds me of the Userbox mass deletion fiasco of January 2006, see
RFC/Kelly Martin
It reminds me of spoiler warnings. It's amazing just how much spoiler
warnings turned out to be a template for all sorts of... suboptimal...
activities. Once you delete tens of thousands of things, you've won,
regardless of whether you've followed the rules or not.
It is easier to attack than defend. If you want to justify high
standards and removal, there are easy arguments: 'what if this could
be another Seigenthaler?' 'what if this is fancruft Wikipedia will be
criticized for including?'
If you want to defend, you have... what? Even the mockery of _The New
Yorker_ didn't convince several editors that [[Neil Gaiman]] should
cover Scientology. There is no beacon example of deletionism's
grievous errors.
--
gwern