Trying to enter this conversation is like hopping on a merry go round
... spinning at 1000 km/hr.
First off, we should stop using the label "deletionists" as it maligns
and inaccurately portrays what folks are genuinely are doing in good
faith -- seeking better editorial quality and to further trust in
Wikipedia. It's no more fair than calling people abortionists or
supporters of euthanasia "suicidists." Lets find another label.
Second, people are demonizing VfD and the process when the alternative
is far worse - deletion wars, having to dig back into ost edit
histories, resurrecting conversations, etc.
VfD clarifies -- it tries to quantify and clarify the will of the
community. It provides a firm deadline, which humans respond to. It
provides a unified forum for discussion on the entire range of topics in
Wikipedia (and by extension, humankind). It is pointed to by
boilerplate text added to articles, which shows up in peoples'
Watchlists. The signal to noise ratio is quite good -- obvious deletes
get deleted, and obvious keeps get kept.
It's one of the few places where one can feel "in touch" with the pulse
of what happens in Wikipedia. It's the last stop between quality and
chaos. This is especially true for folks who believe in Wikipedia as a
place with quality editorial content and worthy of reader trust, and not
as an attic for all things under the sky.
So I would argue "Wiki is not paper" is not a good enough to justify the
tremendous reach of adding all victims of all tragedies in the history
of the universe. Yes, being paper-based limits what to put in a paper
encyclopedia. But what's more important to the editors of those
encyclopedias is good judgment, fostering trust between the publisher
and reader, and the pursuit of "the truth."
-Fuzheado
-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rick
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 10:43 AM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Rampant Deletionism
Well, if people feel that there is a space for Wikipedia in these
devotionals, and others that there is not, there is no middle ground,
and therefore what is there to discuss?
Why shouldn't they be in the encyclopedia? Because they make Wikipedia
look bad. People look at these articles and say, "How can they claim to
be a serious encyclopedia when they have articles about how someone is
beloved by their dog?"
RickK
Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com> wrote:
Rick wrote:
My opinion is the same as yours. Such articles have no
place on
Wikipedia.
Is your opinion the same as Gareth's that further discussion is
worthless? I hope not, and I hope he'll change his mind about that,
too.
I'm interested in hearing about just *why* you think such articles
"have no place on Wikipedia". What's the harm? How does it
negatively impact us?
_____
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect <http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree> your identity with
Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard