Jesse is, I think, right, inasmuch as those who create articles apropos of their otherwise
non-notable and/or unverifiable companies, websites, or theories may well not perceive any
promotional effect from the existence of their articles, and surely may not intend such
promotion. Many may read the injunctive message and think that it doesn't apply to
his/her article because there is no promotional purpose and because (in his/her mind) the
subject is notable. I am rather confident that George W. Bush deeply and sincerely
believes that his actions are in the best interests of the American people,
notwithstanding that it seems altogether clear to me that they are often not; even if
it's evident to most editors that a given website/theory/company/band is non-notable
(or unverifiable), it may not be evident to those creating a page.
[[WP:AGF]] (and good sense) means, I think, that we oughtn't to classify as vandals
those who create a page about a topic to which we'd imagine the injunctive message to
refer. Surely if one continues to create articles where he/she is cognizant of their
"unencyclopedic" nature, "vandal" is an appropriate term; even if
he/she doesn't intend to be disruptive, the effect of his/her actions is disruptive,
and he/she has been apprised of such disruptive quality and elects (for whatever reason,
most typically simple recalictrance) to continue editing in a manner to which the
community are opposed.
One imperative message, though, isn't sufficient, in my mind, to ensure that a
newbie well understands what is inappropriate for the encyclopedia, and I think many
prospective valuable contributors could be lost by our dismissing straightaway and as
"vandals" misguided or nescient new users.
Joe
[[User:Jahiegel|Joe]]
"Daniel P. B. Smith" <wikipedia2006(a)dpbsmith.com> wrote:
From: Jesse W
\However, many bad pages created are not created in
bad faith - the
people who create them are not vandals. People who think the
encyclopedia would benefit from an article on their novel theory of
history, or their new company, or this fascinating new website they
just came across - *are* *not* acting in bad faith, and *are* *not*
intending to damage the 'pedia (although, in fact, they are), and so
*are* *not* vandals.
When anyone who creates a new article, a message above the edit box
is displayed which reads:
"Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about
yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles created
as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in
accordance with our deletion policies."
Anyone who goes ahead anyway and creates an article promoting their
new company most certainly _is_ acting in bad faith.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l