3 ms·
Frankly when did Wikipedia admins start getting praised for not doing a thorough job and acting as gatekeepers? This is likely the source of most biases. Agai
by rob_c 5y ago
Frankly when did Wikipedia admins start getting praised for not doing a thorough job and acting as gatekeepers?
This is likely the source of most biases.
Again. Leaving an article and requesting additions from the public is drastically different to deleting it because it doesn't meet some arbitrary standard.
This case proves that something in that process is making Wikipedia all the poorer for this being the case.
- BeetleB 5y ago> Again. Leaving an article and requesting additions from the public is drastically different to deleting it because it doesn't meet some arbitrary standard. Correct, but irrelevant. There was no article. Only a draft specifically created and submitted to be reviewed. It was reviewed and fair feedback was provided. This is different from the process where an article already exists and is marked for deletion. Edit: See here for more details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28237054 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28237054 Edit 2: There apparently was another article in 2014 which was deleted. The information above is about the more recent AFC that was deleted.