On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:32 AM, Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
Ryan Delaney wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Samuel Klein
<meta.sj(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Now that's a lovely perennial idea. There's no point in hard deleting
any
> article save to protect private information
in the history. You can
pure
wiki
delete; or even pure wiki delete and protect the blank page; but
removing the work done from view of interested passers-by is wholly
unnecessary.
I haven't found any persuasive argument against it. Usually the objection
is
"but then there would be edit wars over
deletion!"
The main argument is rationalisation: if you ever thought that it was a
valid idea to rationalise the scope of the project at any point, you'd
probably start with the thought that with hundreds of thousands of
articles deleted every year and most of that material being at best
thoroughly marginal to what we are trying to do, then (you might argue
that) having it all around is on balance not really helpful. So against
that you can argue that WP doesn't need rationalisation of any kind: it
can just go on growing how it likes given the resources. People seem to
draw their own conclusions on this debate. Mine are based largely on the
kind of focus or lack of it you see in people who want to search through
those millions of deleted words, rather than anything else they could be
trawling through.
Charles
I'm having trouble following your meaning, I think because I'm not familiar
with how you are using "rationalisation". Can you explain a bit more please?
- causa sui