--- Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
Cheney Shill wrote:
Why not just start applying the policy? Set a
time
limit.
No RS, delete.
...
It seems like there has been an extended and
unstated
policy to create essentially article shells simply to
get
the article count up and increase Wikipedia's
popularity.
I've created my share of stubs and this is not even
remotely the reason
why. In most cases it's because I went looking for an
article, didn't
find it, and wanted to get it started so that hopefully
others would add
more detail. Why should I care about Wikipedia's gross
article count?
Assume good faith, please.
OK. AGF. The stubs went nowhere. It's not your falt. It
may have even scared others away. You tried, nothing
happened. Time to let it go and AGF upon those deleting
it.
WP has a high
enough count and popularity. Why not
start
actually focusing on content detail and enforcing
the
long
standing yet rarely applied policies?
[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] is not policy.
Problem is, under the scenario given, othing is verifiable
supports the articles. That makes it a violation of
verifiablity, regardless of what guidelines you prefer, but
WP:V does just happens to mention reliable sources in its
1st sentence. It's also a violation of original research
because there's nothing to show otherwise. Let's not
forget NPOV, which states at the very top "... significant
views that have been published by a reliable source."
There's nothing stated in any policy or guideline about
giving stubs long-term policy exception status.
of jokes about
knowledge by consensus and hearsay like
that
on the 1/24 Colbert Report until WP loses what
trust it
has.
That's a false dilemma.
It's original research, I'll grant you that. Nonetheless,
the jokes and increased publicity and stature thereof are
verifiable.
~~Pro-Lick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick
http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com