Wikipedia process is loathsome but grievance farming about deletions of articles that didn't come close to meeting mind-bogglingly well-documented inclusion standards but were about Persons of Protected Identity so we don't need to understand those standards is also loathsome
-
-
the speedy deletion for being copypasta was unambiguously correct. with the citation-free article, both the people who wrote it with no citations and the people who deleted it as a way of demanding citations instead of spending a few minutes to add them are at fault
-
the fault of the creating editors is mitigated by their presumed ignorance; the fault of the deleting editors is mitigated by their personal discretion in whether they feel like allowing their unpaid labor to be demanded through the mechanism of writing articles with no citations
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Eh. Neither would cause a speedy deletion of a new article on Sam Harris. I agree deleted articles that result in news can be that way, but they get news because the Wiki mindset that uses rules to short-circuit critical thinking is bad and insular in a way alien to most people.
-
the uncited article might not, that's always a pure crapshoot, but the copypasta article on Sam Harris would be deleted to a high degree of certainty, copyvio is policed with an iron fist and automated tools yes, it's a highly developed system of metis and so very vulnerable
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.