On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:32 AM, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Ryan Delaney wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Samuel Klein <meta...@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 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
