On 9/14/05, Snowspinner <Snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 14, 2005, at 11:23 AM, JAY JG wrote:
From: Dan
Grey <dangrey(a)gmail.com>
On 13/09/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote: But
keeping unencyclopedic ones hurts Wikipedia too.
Does it? How?
It reduces the credibility of the project.
Jay.
I would rather have an encyclopedia that has a truly staggering
amount of information but that some people dismiss because it has
some silly articles than a well-respected but heavily incomplete
encyclopedia. If I wanted that, I'd just go to Britannica.
-Snowspinner
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I said keeping unencyclopedic articles hurts Wikipedia. When people
dismiss Wikipedia they're often talk about stubs they find incomplete
and items they don't expect to find in encyclopedia. I mean
unencyclopedic entries which shouldn't be here to begin with as per
WP:NOT.