On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 01:11:17AM -0600, Todd Allen
wrote:
Philip Sandifer wrote:
On Oct 28, 2007, at 3:14 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
> Those "Hey, I'll start a one-para
article on something I know" are
>
generally just as bad or worse, and harder to remove.
I'm missing, I think, why this is bad.
-Phil
No sources, half the time ("half" being probably an
underestimation) on
very, very borderline subjects that -just- duck speedy to start with,
usually most of what's there is wrong (because it's pulled from memory,
not sources), etc.
I think that the majority of articles were probably pulled from memory
and then later the author or others added sources and modified the
article to match the sources. One reason why wikipedia is so successfull
is that the collective memory of people is massive. Do not knock it? If
we relied on people going to sources first all the time, the place would
be much less successful, much less interesting and much smaller. The
collective knowledge of people is what WP has tapped into.
Exactly. That's why
lack of sources by itself should never be a basis
for speedy deletion. If Todd wants to make this about "borderline
subjects" that's a completely different criterion that needs to be
investigated separately. "Borderline" suggests uncertainty, and that
too makes speedy inapplicable.
"Collective memory" is a tough idea for some people out there at the
triple point of knowledge. Those standing on solids still need the
wisdom to distinguish between the gas and liquid states.
Ec