4,994
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 57:
Line 57: + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Commandments (view source)
Revision as of 11:16, February 16, 2007
, 11:16, February 16, 2007→Encyclopedic Content
:I might add that the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] page does not complain about useless Wikipedia entries. One (of 22) complaints there criticized Wikipedia's bragging about have so many entries, which the vast majority of its entries are frivilous. That is a complaint about misleading advertising, not a demand for deletion. Several complaints about Wikipedia on [[Bias in Wikipedia]] are about speedy and arbitrary deletions, something we want to avoid here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:45, 15 February 2007 (EST)
:I might add that the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] page does not complain about useless Wikipedia entries. One (of 22) complaints there criticized Wikipedia's bragging about have so many entries, which the vast majority of its entries are frivilous. That is a complaint about misleading advertising, not a demand for deletion. Several complaints about Wikipedia on [[Bias in Wikipedia]] are about speedy and arbitrary deletions, something we want to avoid here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:45, 15 February 2007 (EST)
:'''Reply''' The Examples of Bias page has 5 entries attacking Wikipedia for having too much useless Info, (Nos 7, 10, 18, 19 and 22) and only 1 attacking the deletion policy, (No 9) --TimSvendsen 11:59, 15 February 2007 (EST)
:'''Reply''' The Examples of Bias page has 5 entries attacking Wikipedia for having too much useless Info, (Nos 7, 10, 18, 19 and 22) and only 1 attacking the deletion policy, (No 9) --TimSvendsen 11:59, 15 February 2007 (EST)
==="Inclusionism" versus "deletionism"===
This discussion, and the one at [[AFD Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious]], parallel a very longstanding situation in Wikipedia between "inclusionists" and "deletionists." When people are allowed to edit without direct supervision, they concentrate on those topics for which they have the greatest enthusiasm, which leads to unbalanced coverage. It also leads to the creation of articles which detractors call "cruft." Aschlafly criticizes the overemphasis on pop culture, but I don't know if he's even run across the cruftier kinds of articles. Some specific topic areas that have generated heated discussion include:
*Roads, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netcong_Circle Netcong Circle], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Route_520_%28New_Jersey%29 County Road 520, New Jersey]
*Micronations, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Bumbunga Province of Bumbunga]
*Conlangs (artificially constructed languages), e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona Toki Pona]
These are actually good articles of their kind because they've survived a process which eventually weeded out the "cruftier" examples.
(No doubt Aschlafly, who keeps giving me rope on which I keep hanging myself, will add these to his examples of Wikipedian silliness...)
Inclusionists concentrate on the importance of building the encyclopedia and attracting contributions, and emphasize the virtues of improving rather than deleting sketchy articles on "silly" subjects. Deletionists emphasize the importance of keeping a high standard and getting rid of low-quality articles.... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:16, 16 February 2007 (EST)
==WWII German Entries==
==WWII German Entries==