RationalWiki talk:Articles for deletion/Category:Bullshit

"I now see one argument for deletion and three for keeping it, by the way."

I want to discuss this somewhere so I'll start here. In this case I will use the WP example of !voting as my basis. Just because ten people pile on with "yes, what he said!" does not mean five times as much as two good arguments for another remedy. It is half as much.

When they discuss topics like this on the 'pedia, it is argument and reason that counts, not people lining up to say "what so-and-so said".  ħ uman  03:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So, counting votes is bad, but counting "arguments" is good, never mind their quality?--ZooGuard (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, counting !votes is lame, assessing arguments and distilling them to a conclusion is good.  ħ uman [[Image:human sig talk.gif|link=User talk:Human|User talk:Human]] 03:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Labels
I think part of what bothers me about the categorization of articles, esp. articles about people, is how lazy it is. It's not like the body of the article, where one editor may write, "So-and-so is a fat, lying, alcoholic socialist" and another editor could edit it to say, "So-and-so is a morbidly obese alcoholic whose statements on such-and-such have been widely ridiculed. She is also a self-proclaimed socialist." --Read-Write (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I realize this is a bit off-topic, but what if the Wikipedian "[Citation Needed]" was changed to "[Bullshit?]"? Read-Write (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Citation needed" makes it much more clearer what is expected to be done to fix the problem. Wikis are supposed to be friendly to new editors and casual readers.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)