There are extremists on both sides of the debate. Aside from them,
the vast majority, I suspect, simply want a method for evaluating the
inclusion of an article that's less time consuming, produces a less
weighty page to read, and produces less in the way of flames.
There should, as other contributors have noted, be a method whereby
obvious keep candidates and pages that should have been speedy deleted
can be removed quickly, rather than clogging things up.
-Matt (User:Morven)
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 16:18:12 +1000, Rebecca <misfitgirl(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The very essence of what makes Wikipedia work is
consensus.
It concerns me that a handful of inclusionists, who realise that their
views are not shared by the majority of the community, simply turn to
claiming that "VFD is broken", because it does not get their desired
results.
People have put things on VFD before that I've agreed with. I've
argued a case that they shouldn't be deleted, and it's very rare that
such an article has then gone ahead and be deleted. If you put up an
argument, and the majority *still* think that it should be deleted,
then tough. That's the way it works.
VFD *is* growing too large to be maintainable, but that's a result of
our continued growth, rather than some evil plan by the deletionists
to go on an annihilating spree. A solution to that needs to be found,
and I'm not sure what, but allowing junk to remain in the pedia is not
the answer.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l