1,136
edits
m (→Site reviews: link) |
(→Site reviews: quoting MarvelZuvembie and linking to the more recent discussion) |
||
Line 552: | Line 552: | ||
::I agree that any review info should be objective rather than subjective, but the question is about notability and fairness of certain "facts". For example, I (repeatedly) posted a "fact" in the [[RationalWiki]] article, that there was a debate about an issue on the talk page. Is it a notable fact? Is it fair to host or link to criticism of one without doing this for any competing wikis or wiki farm? When persistent editors make sure that their favored articles are free of certain "criticisms", is it fair to allow criticism in another article just because there is no one so driven to "protect" it? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:58, 23 June 2010 (EDT) | ::I agree that any review info should be objective rather than subjective, but the question is about notability and fairness of certain "facts". For example, I (repeatedly) posted a "fact" in the [[RationalWiki]] article, that there was a debate about an issue on the talk page. Is it a notable fact? Is it fair to host or link to criticism of one without doing this for any competing wikis or wiki farm? When persistent editors make sure that their favored articles are free of certain "criticisms", is it fair to allow criticism in another article just because there is no one so driven to "protect" it? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:58, 23 June 2010 (EDT) | ||
:::''"By basic information, I mean facts which can be verified empirically (the link, the underlying wiki engine, the statement of purpose, # of pages, etc.). I differentiate this from people's subjective experiences with the wiki. [...] --MarvelZuvembie 20:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT)" Quote is from ''[[WikiIndex_talk:Policies_and_Guidelines#Proposal:_Articles_should_preferably_stick_to_facts|here]] and that is a more recent conversation. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:30, 23 June 2010 (EDT) | |||
== SizeBot? == | == SizeBot? == |
edits