Active Entries
- 1: Five Stories About What Happens After You’ve Defeated the Big Bad
- 2: NDP celebrate electoral trounsing
- 3: Stupid but true
- 4: Young People Read Old Nebula Finalists: Mikal's Songbird by Orson Scott Card
- 5: Two Comments
- 6: Port Eternity by C J Cherryh
- 7: That was fast
- 8: Five SFF Works About Contests and Competition
- 9: Bundle of Holding: Pride Games
- 10: Clarke Award Finalists 1999
Style Credit
- Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2008-10-25 01:21 am (UTC)I don't get it. What's the point of deletionism? You say "fewer but better" -- but what's actually happening is that energy that could be put into "better" is being spent on deletion fights, and it seems like most of the articles I go there to read are carrying the dreaded "deletion" tag.
I understand the point of "better", of course; what's the point of "fewer"? Wikipedia is online, and volunteer-written, and does not have the constraints of paper encyclopedias.
Feel free to take it to email if you think a private discussion would go better; I'm trivially easy to find, have had the same email since 1999 now roughly. And of course I can't compel you to discuss it at all. I'm hoping there's some kind of point to the other side that I could maybe actually understand, really I am.