On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Ken Arromdee <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Adam Koenigsberg wrote: >> I oppose this mass deletion but support the theory behind it, that is to >> say, I would support this deletion criteria but believe this to be out of >> process. Being Bold doesn't extend to administrator tools, IMHO. This >> reminds me of the Userbox mass deletion fiasco of January 2006, see >> RFC/Kelly Martin > > It reminds me of spoiler warnings. It's amazing just how much spoiler > warnings turned out to be a template for all sorts of... suboptimal... > activities. Once you delete tens of thousands of things, you've won, > regardless of whether you've followed the rules or not.
It is easier to attack than defend. If you want to justify high standards and removal, there are easy arguments: 'what if this could be another Seigenthaler?' 'what if this is fancruft Wikipedia will be criticized for including?' If you want to defend, you have... what? Even the mockery of _The New Yorker_ didn't convince several editors that [[Neil Gaiman]] should cover Scientology. There is no beacon example of deletionism's grievous errors. -- gwern _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
