[WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this?

Tue Oct 18 13:10:15 UTC 2005

What needs to be done is to remove all information that lacks a  
source in a reputable reference. I know that is burdensome. Start  
small on the most egregious example and enter into dispute resolution  
with whoever attempts to revert; I am not suggesting you revert back  
even once. As someone once said, "Anyone is entitled to their own  
opinion; no one is entitled to their own facts."  There were  
irregularities, one occurred in the county I live in, Saguache  
County, Colorado; here the district judge removed the County Clerk  
from supervision of the election due to irregularities. That incident  
was richly documented in the local papers. Rank speculation is quite  
another matter.

Fred

On Oct 17, 2005, at 7:40 PM, Snowspinner wrote:

> [[2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities]]  
> and its 8 sub-articles, at present, take up 56085 words. This is  
> five times as much as the whole of our coverage on Immanuel Kant.
>
> The articles are, needless to say, utter crap - full of conspiracy  
> theory rantings and POV, they read like the collected waste  
> products of a month of blogging, which is, not coincidentally,  
> exactly what they are.
>
> All of them have been VfDed on two occasions a year or so ago when  
> the election actually happened, and survived. In that time, they've  
> only gotten worse, more bloated, and more absurd.
>
> What can we do about these articles, and other cases of what we  
> might call POV by volume - [[Jack Thompson (attorney)]] and  
> [[Westboro Baptist Church]] spring to mind here as well.
>
> My inclination, quite honestly, is to speedy all nine of these  
> election articles and let people start over. Whatever comes now, a  
> year after the event, cannot possibly be as appallingly bad as this.
>
> And don't just shoot back with {{sofixit}} - there's no good fix.  
> It would involve deleting 90% of all 8 of these articles, a change  
> that would be quickly reverted anyway, and, with the way my editing  
> has been going, probably lead to my getting another RfC, because  
> they seem all the rage.
>
> We need some sort of system that's going to untangle this kind of  
> mess - something that doesn't rely on enough people with a whit of  
> common sense watchlisting the articles and being willing to angrily  
> revert the stupid, because, quite frankly, that obviously didn't  
> work here.
>
> Thoughts? Jimbo in particular?
>
> -Snowspinner
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>