On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 17:36:07 -0500, Phil Sandifer
<Snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I can usually find one absolutely god-awful deletion a
day on it that
is getting inadequate consideration for reasons that have nothing to
do with any useful definition of verifiability. Today's is [[Girly]],
which I just went ahead and undeleted on the grounds that there was
no point in sitting through a charade on DRV.
In other words, there was consensus to delete, a strong majority to
endorse deletion, but you "know better". Maybe you do, but doesn't it
strike you as just the *teensiest* bit arrogant?
Seems to me that when DRV endorses the process because it's valid then
DRV is "broken", but when it overrides AfD supermajority it's
"broken". I've been watching DRV for a while, most of them seem
pretty uncontentious, I am having trouble finding the brokenness. AfD
is, without doubt, problematic, but the issue there is essentially
that it doesn't scale properly to encompass the sheer volume of crap
articles being created. I personally feel that an article tagged for
cleanup as unsourced should be deleted if not fixed within 14 days,
that would remove a lot of the problems.
> Again, I think this is nonsense. Most of them
seem to be written by
> the people who want the crud *included*, which is why we have such a
> farcically low bar to porn "stars".
It tends to be, specifically, an uneasy and crappy
consensus of the
people who want to delete all of them and the people who want to
include all of them, with an understandably but unfortunately low
amount of input from the people who really don't care very much about
porn stars. As a result every notability guideline tends to be a
roughly halfway point between delete all/include all such that there
is no consistency across topics.
That's compromise, not consensus. Compromise on which everyone can
agree, that's consensus. And in the end, what's so wrong? We see
with [[WP:SCHOOLS]] what happens when people *refuse* to compromise:
pain, absurdity. PORNBIO sets the bar too low, I guess others might
be too high, but I see no real informed dissent form the view that
there should be some significance bar to inclusion. Debate on where
the bar lies is, of course, perfectly legitimate.
> What, people's refusal to find decent sources?
Sure is.
That and a complete lack of understanding of what a
decent source is.
The latter is increasingly more prevalent than the former - citation
of something to a mediocre source, particularly when nobody seriously
doubts the accuracy of the information, is a far more preferable
outcome than deletion of things that are sourced to completely
reliable sources that fail to meet some editor's desire for a test
that can be operated by a robot.
Maybe, but that's a pendulum thing. In the end the best result for
the project is if people talk about stuff, rather than hurling
accusations of wanting to delete "everything" or keep "everything".
The most frustrating thing for me is this: there is absolutely no
shortage of places where you can find crap off "teh internets". I was
attracted to Wikipedia because of the aspiration to be rather better
than that; setting a higher standard than "I heard it on teh
internets". Sure, people pick the low-hanging fruit, but much of the
most contested stuff is well beyond low hanging and into well-rotted
worm-ridden windfalls. Do we *really* need articles on every Flash
cartoon and porn "star" on the planet? Or should that perhaps wait
until we've taken the trouble to document those subjects which require
a bit of work to find out about? Those where a Google search is not
going to give an immediate and compendious answer? Every now and then
we should actually take a trip to the library, to save someone else
having to.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG