Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jay Surdukowski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

13 Respectful Questions for Wikipedians

Before any more votes, to the deletists who want to stifle this scholarship (the last person's screen name is so very apt), here are 13 questions. Before another vote to delete, it would be interesting to have your take on specific and general issues about this entry. Some thought before uninformed condemnation... Don't be afraid.


1. How do you feel about the fact that colleges and high schools universally deny Wikipedia any role in the classroom because of its wildly dramatic unreliability as a respectable source of knowledge?

  • They're being careful, which is a good thing. Reference materials shouldn't be used indiscriminantly. In any case, Wikipedia is still a very new encyclopedia—Brittanica has quite a but more histroy behind it, which lends it far more weight.--Sean Black (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

2. Does deleting new ideas and views give you a rush, a sense of power?

  • Not me, no. It does make me think that we are keeping the encyclopedia clean of self-promotion and insignificant silliness, however.--Sean Black (talk) 04:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

3. For the sub-21 year olds who call for deletion, if you apply to college, do you plan to put your work for Wikipedia on your resume?

  • Interesting, seems more like an attack on those who are below 21 years of age than anything else. But, regardless, as one of those "sub-21 year olds", most likely, because it's largely irrelevant to the field that I wish to study in.--Sean Black (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

4. In this case, how do you explain the non-notability of a scholarly work published in the seventh most cited journal of international law in the world, which is dealing with a man accused to have helped orchestrate genocide in a series of wars that led to the deaths of roughly 250,000 people in the former-Yugoslavia?

  • Now here I'm confused. I don't see anything about Yugoslavia or international law journals—this article is about a law student who's only claim to significance is his contribution to the fandom of an American television show.--Sean Black (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

5. Can you offer more than seven words that intelligently make a case for this entries’ deletion?

  • Yes, and I have done so on the main page.--Sean Black (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

6. Can people who were toddlers at the time of the worst genocide in Europe since the Holocaust pass judgment on scholarship about one of its perpetrators? If yes, what are your conclusions about this scholarship and why specifically it should be blocked?

  • Again, we seem to be talking about two different things here. This article is not about genocide or scholarship about it.--Sean Black (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

7. Does Wikipedia make you feel like you are a part of a community?

  • To an extent, yes, because, to an extent, it is. A community will naturally develop around a collaborative project.--Sean Black (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

8. Is there such thing as dissent in Wikipedia?

  • Of course! That's the very nature of collaboration. Smart people can and do disagree. Ideally, they reach a compromise, or as we tend to call it, consensus.--Sean Black (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

9. “Wikipedia is a democracy.” “Wikipedia is not a democracy.” Both these statements appear hundreds of times in Wiki-World. Which is correct?

  • I highly doubt that "Wikipedia is a democracy" appears "hundreds of times" in this website, as it is most definitely not true. See What Wikipedia is not.--Sean Black (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

10. Do Wikipedian’s anxiety about their work’s impotence in the world of ideas lead them to harmful behavior, i.e. overzealousness in deleting new and progressive ideas?

  • I don't believe so. The thing about "new and progressive" ideas is that they can never appear in Wikipedia first. Wikipedia only reports existing ideas and viewpoints.--Sean Black (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

11. Are some voices in Wiki-world more elite than others? If Jimbo’s mother had died in the Yugoslavia war and he wrote to support an entry about this scholarly idea, what would the deletists say/do?

  • Some people's opinions are more valued than others' because they've shown good judgement in the past. In the case of Jimbo, he could theoretically decree that an article should be kept, but I doubt he would do so (I also doubt he would write an article about his mother—He's shown a distinct distaste for vanity articles and, indeed, was quite opposed with the idea that he have an article about himself.) Beyond that, he's almost certainly far too busy dealing with other issues to write an article.--Sean Black (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

12. If a humble carpenter’s assistant’s unheard of ideas about loving your neighbor and the fact that God is love appeared on Wikipedia, what would you do (without the benefit of Biblical hindsight)?

  • Interesting comparison, if rather vain. In any case, if Jesus had put these ideas into Wikipedia first, then yes, they would be deleted. As I said, Wikipedia only reports existing ideas and viewpoints. Additionally, Christianity has had about 2,000 years to propogate—it seems your ideas have had slightly less time :-).

13. Is an entry on Wikipedia power?

  • No, it's merely an indication of significance.--Sean Black (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.232.186 (talk • contribs)