Re:40% of Wikipedia is under threat from deletionists
by microcolonel on Tuesday March 28, 2017 @02:01PM
(#13978968)
If you read carefully, you'll see that I'm not arguing for the deletion of stubs. I'm arguing against the creation of the "deletionist" identity. Deleting a stub article is an action. If the action of deleting stubs is making Wikipedia worse rather than better, then the policy needs to change. We don't need a campaign of shame and a witch hunt for "deletionists".
Re:40% of Wikipedia is under threat from deletionists
by kstrauser on Tuesday March 28, 2017 @02:11PM
(#13979076)
> If the action of deleting stubs is making Wikipedia worse rather than better, then the policy needs to change.
It is and it does.
> We don't need a campaign of shame and a witch hunt for "deletionists".
Given the lack of official action against what are widely perceived as abusive trolls, I think a shaming campaign is inevitable.
Re:40% of Wikipedia is under threat from deletionists
by microcolonel on Tuesday March 28, 2017 @02:15PM
(#13979131)
Watch it work so well, just like every other identitarian shame campaign.
Why is that a problem? Suppose you write a stub and walk away. Some day I want to look up the same subject and maybe write about it. There are two paths:
1) Your stub still exists. I see your references and use that as a starting point to flesh it out.
2) Your stub was deleted. I see none of your work and start over from scratch.
On a practical level, what would the existence of your stub cost? It's a few KB of text and not directly linked from anywhere; it's not like we all find WP articles by loading a master index and starting from the top.