Yes, but some of those really bad articles will become good articles if you spend enough time on them.
Deletion short-circuits that. In a perfect world, with perfect AFDs it wouldn't matter. In the real world, with real world AFDs it does. On 04/11/2009, Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 6:41 AM, Ryan Delaney <ryan.dela...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Well, now you've given me another guess: The problem with PWD is that it's >> wrong to have deleted material available for people to look at because >> that >> would encourage them to look at deleted content rather than undeleted >> material? > > (I haven't read the PWD proposal, but it seems self-explanatory.) > > Deletion is good because it totally dispenses with junk. Average > article quality goes up when we ditch bad articles. It prevents people > from spending time on really bad articles. Having deleted articles > readily available would interfere with all that. There are places on > the internet for all kinds of junk, regardless of quality or value. > Wikipedia is not one. > > Steve > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- -Ian Woollard _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l