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
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@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
your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard