Am 22.09.2011 00:42, schrieb Bjoern Hoehrmann: > * Tobias Oelgarte wrote: >>> The poll asked whether there should be formalized restrictions beyond >>> the existing ones (only good articles can be proposed). Voters decided >>> against that and to keep the status quo instead where it is decided on >>> a case-by-case basis which articles to feature on the main page without >>> additional formalized selection criteria that would disqualify certain >>> articles. Put differently, they decided that if someone disagress that >>> a certain article should not be featured, they cannot point to policy >>> to support their argument. >>> >> That isn't true. Since the policy states that all terms are treated >> equal (NPOV) there is only a discussion if the date might be suitable >> (topics with correlation to a certain date get precedence). Otherwise it >> is decided if the quality (actuality and so on) is suitable for AotD, >> since there might be a lot of time between the last nomination for good >> articles and the versions might differ strongly due to recent changes. >> If a topic is offensive or not does not play any role. Only quality >> matters. This rule existed from the beginning and it did not change. > What I meant to say is: "if someone disagrees with featuring a certain > article, they cannot point to policy that restricts which subjects can > be featured to support their argument" as there is none and editors de- > cided against introducing any. Now we speak the same language. Sorry if i misunderstood your first wording. ;-)
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
