[WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Afd "votes" with no real reasons given

Fri Sep 16 11:50:19 UTC 2005

"Ryan Delaney" <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote 
in message news:eecbb0630509152024421173d4 at mail.gmail.com...
On 9/15/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> 
wrote:
> > ... If I see them write a few words in the context
> > of the debate, I'm happier that there has been an informed discussion.
> I don't think it's your business to decide what is and isn't an "informed
> decision". The person casting the vote thought their decision was informed
> enough or they wouldn't be voting. If you think someone isn't well 
> informed,
> you inform them. You don't just discard their votes without comment.

I wonder if you might be taking [[assume good faith]] a little too far. In 
several cases I have observed, voters use the phrase "non-notable" as a 
synonym for "I haven't heard of that". Given the vast depths of my own 
ignorance, I would be surprised if I had heard of more than a very few of 
the people and things described on Wikipedia before reading the relevant 
article. If an article says that the subject is a "notable" member of their 
profession (or whatever) I tend to think this means that someone who 
actually knows the field would recognise the name, rather than that "Joe on 
the Street" ought to.

> You don't just discard their votes without comment.

>From whence do you gain the impression that Tony "discards" those votes? My 
take on his comment was that he felt more satisfaction closing a discussion 
which appeared more "informed", rather than having his conclusion affected.

ISRTBC HTH HAND
-- 
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]] 