Talk:Clickbait/Archives/2015

List of examples

(Cont'd from above) @McGeddon: I did not "blank" the list (language most often used for vandal edits), I purposefully removed it, complete with an invite to discussing the move on the talk page. If you disagree that is one thing: then let us discuss. But please avoid using the phrase "I've restored" - your edit reverts mine. Nothing more, nothing less. I am going to assume you simply made an honest mistake believing I was vandalizing the list, and so I will repeat my edit, for the benefit of any possible future discussion. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Now with that probable misunderstanding out of the way, here's my edit summary, for your convenience in any further discussion: "Boldly removing entire troublesome list. Please don't arbitrarily build up a new one where examples are simply picked by editors. See talk"

In other words, I would like to argue that the fact the items on the list are picked by editors makes for a concern itself, inviting bias. Specifically: being on the list means being shamed; not being on the list means getting off the hook. Not what I want Wikipedia to do. Now, if you (or I) can find a source with precisely this kind of list, then we can say "Here's a list of examples of clickbait according to so-and-so" allowing the reader to check the source's political leanings and draw conclusions for him- or herself, rather than the previous list, where WE (Wikipedia) come across as the authority in ourselves.

Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)