[WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

Tue Oct 10 07:02:29 UTC 2006

Bryan Derksen wrote:

>Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
>  
>
>>On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 14:51:22 -0700, "Silas Snider" <swsnider at gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>I'm not understanding this point -- why then do we have articles on
>>>things such as [[Pipe organ]] or even people such as [[Donald Knuth]]
>>>-- both of these can be easily looked up online, and they take up some
>>>much more disk space than [[Fleshlight]]
>>>      
>>>
>>I think the answer to this question is to check the availability of
>>recorded media celebrating skilled operators of the pipe organ versus
>>the fleshlight.  Organists are notable, wankers are not.
>>    
>>
>How many celebrated skilled operators of [[Donald Knuth]] are there?
>This is kind of a weird criteria for establishing "notability", I don't
>think it's widely applicable.
>
It seems that that notability now depends on what kind of organ you play 
with. :-)

The high degree of subjectivity connected with the idea of notability 
can only result in this being a battle that never ends.

>Personally, I have no idea whether Fleshlight is notable or not without
>doing further research I probably don't care to perform. But that's what
>talk page debates, AfD, RfC and such are for. We have ways of reaching
>community consensus on such things.
>
I feel the same way about the subject.  I can sympathize with the Danny 
being under unremitting pressure from idiotic phone callers, but it is 
also important to clarify the demarcation between Foundation and 
Wikipedia (or other project) responsibilities.  As office staff Danny is 
too easily seen as acting out of greater authority than the rest of us.  
This is the perception even when it is not the reality.  Thus when it 
comes to routine admin actions he needs to show more restraint than the 
rest of us.  Perhaps discussing the issue with admins that he trusts 
before taking action, and delegating to them the task of dealing with 
the problem article would be a more peaceable way of dealing with it.  
This would leave him more free to reserve his  OFFICE powers to 
situations where the potential for legal liability is unquestionable.

If the reason for taking action is that the article has been the 
persistent target for spam or edit wars deleting the article ranks right 
up there with decapitation as a cure for a headache.

Ec