Further to MGM's point, as we get more popular, more attention will be paid
to us and we cannot afford to carry thousands of bad articles if we can
avoid it.
Last week, we had editors of a Dartmouth campus newspaper try and sneak in
an article about molecular economics and its supposed founder. It was picked
up in AfD and deleted. If it had not been picked up, we would have had more
embarrassing publicity.
In earlier years, the Siegenthaler incident would not have received nearly
as much attention. We need to ensure quality control issues receive more
attention not less.
Regards.
Keith Old
Keith Old
User:Capitalistroadster
On 12/9/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I don't see how you can refer to 5000 articles that need deletion as
being equivalent to something as positive as growth.
What you are forgetting is that such articles can be found by Google and
thus by readers. Those 5000 articles will damage not only Wikipedia's
credibility, but also use Wikipedia resources.
Also, quite a lot of them would simply be against basic policy, yet not
speediable, meaning we'd basically being allowing stuff in against policy,
which others would see as a reason to drop in more.
Ignoring a problem won't make it go away.
Mgm
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l