> What's the next step? Technical help will certainly be needed.
There's a proposal on the pump to "allow non-sysops to view deleted pages".
Angela opposes it. I think a slightly better solution is to allow a certain
class of users to view the pages. This wouldn't be too hard to implement,
just add a third category to the restrictions column.
But perhaps an even easier technical solution is to just modify
Special:Export to allow certain IP addresses to access deleted articles.
I'm sure we can come up with something that no one objects to, unless
there's an objection to me personally having access to deleted articles.
> Just to clarify: Only material deleted via the VfD process.
Personally I'm more interested in the speedy deletions, now that these are
increasingly being used to deal with legitimate content. Most of the VfDed
material shows up in one of the approximately weekly database dumps. I've
got a script to parse those dumps, but they almost never contain speedy
deletions.
> To begin with, where is the "grammatical error" in "every person
> and every company ever in existence should be kept"?
Did you really mean to imply that I believe people and companies should be
kept? I certainly think we should keep all people. Articles about those
people, on the other hand...
> Secondly, where did I lie when you below support what I said?
You said I "vote to keep any and every article ever written", even after
I've repeatedly pointed out that this isn't true.
I don't post to the mailing list much, but deletion
has recently become an area of great interest to me.
First off I don't think VfD is "broken." I think it is
wonderful and in an ideal world every article would be
given as much scrutiny as those of VfD receive. At
least 99% of deletion decisions are valid.
I do, however, see some worrying trends. My concern is
over the issue of notability. In the past the
articles listed on VfD were there because they were
pure fiction, vanities, nonsense, or advertising. In
recent months, however, an increasing number of
articles are being listed because simply because they
are seen as not being notable enough for an
encyclopedia.
This is despite there being nowhere in What Wikipedia
is not, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, or Wikipedia:Vanity
articles where articles on non-notable things listed
as being eligible for deletion. There is no consensus
that things that are well-known but not notable should
eligible for deletion.
Originally non-notable things and people were not
deleted simply because they were not well known, but
rather because articles on non-famous individuals,
neologisms, garage bands, etc. are unverifiable and
prone to bias. Over time "non-notable things should
be deleted because they inevitably violate Wikipedia's
goal of a neutral and high quality encyclopedia" was
simplified to just "non-notable things should be
deleted." With the original reasoning being lost the
definition for what is not notable has increasingly
been set by wholly arbitrary criteria. There are at
least two users, for instance, who today vote to
delete anything to do with fictional worlds and the
only justification they feel is necessary is to
declare these things "not notable" or "fancruft".
For the most part things that are well known, but
considered by some not to be notable, do not get
consensus for deletion. Those not getting deleted are
also a problem because they clog VfD and waste
everyone's time. Those occasional ones that do
receive consensus for deletion are an even greater
problem because content is being removed from
Wikipedia counter to existing policy and against the
consensus of all but the small VfD community.
There has been an attempt to add lack of notability as
a reason for deletion (see [[Wikipedia:Importance]]).
This effort seems to have failed and there is no
current policy for deleting non-notable things, other
than vanity articles.
I have recently been doing the majority of the
removing of articles from VfD/Old. I am no longer
going to delete articles that receive consensus for
deletion purely because they are not notable. Rather
I propose moving them to [[Wikipedia:List of articles
awaiting a policy to be deleted]]. Articles that do
not meet any of the 30 criteria listed on What
Wikipedia is not and the Deletion policy page should
be set aside. When and if new policies are worked out
that provide a justification for deleting these
articles they can then be quickly deleted.
- SimonP
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
I have just receive emails from Anthony DiPierro and NSK saying that,
yes, they are seriously interested in access to the stream of material
deleted from Wikipedia. NSK says "If they are legal and are not
copyright violations."
Unfortunately, the _number_ of items is too large for one person to
deal with _manually_.
What's the next step? Technical help will certainly be needed.
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
RickK lied, saying:
> This would be great if it weren't for such users as Anthony DiPierro,
> who will, out of reflex, vote to keep any and every article ever written.
> He is on record as saying that every person and every company ever
> in existence should be kept, regardless of their notability or the
notability
> of the articles written about them.
First of all, stop lying. I don't vote to keep any and every article, any
more than you vote to delete every and every article.
As for my statement "that every person and every company ever in existence
should be kept", the grammatical error in that statement points to where you
misquoted me. I believe that every person and every company ever in
existence is notable, and by that I mean the topic is worthy of note in
Wikipedia. If an article on that person is not verifiable, then I don't
think it should be kept. If an article on a company does not provide a link
to a respectable source such as a government document or a newspaper
article, then I don't think it should be kept (although if there is no
reason to believe it is fake I think we could move it to the talk page).
Other people said:
> I didn't say non-notability is a valid excuse for deletion (lots of
> people seem to read things into what I write that I didn't write).
I'm sure people use the term in other ways, but the question of notability
is what VfD is all about. Is the topic worthy of note in Wikipedia? The
problem isn't that we delete things that are non-notable, the problem is
that "not notable" is the entire argument for deletion so much of the time,
and that begs the question. It's also a problem that VfD is set up to
ignore most people's points of view. Some people think that all US
Presidents are notable. Some think that all US cities are notable. Some
think that all US high schools are notable. But these beliefs are ignored
most of the time because in order to express them you have to vote over and
over and over again on the exact same issue.
> That's taking inclusionism too far, probably even for anthony's tastes.
> At least anthony thinks unverifiable articles should be deleted. Unless
> the facts about the dead cat are verifiable from a secondary source, it
> really has no place in an encyclopedia. I think that's something
> practically everyone on both sides of the debate can agree on.
Yes. I think we could have an article on [[Tom Quartz]] and [[Slippers the
cat]], but I think the number of dead cat articles we can reasonably have is
very small. In fact, even in the case of Tom and Slippers, it would
probably be best to redirect these topics to another article, such as
[[Theodore Roosevelt]] or [[Presidential cats]], at least until they grow
too big. I'm rarely opposed to merging a tiny article with a larger one.
> I note with a combination of amusement and horror but no surprise at all
> that almost if not all parties involved in that discussion aside from
> Rick are relatively new contributors (moreso at the time of the
> discussion). What we're seeing seems to be a result of the massive
> influx of new users who either don't understand Wikipedia or its
> long-standing policies and principles, or don't care.
That's in part because the "long standing policies and principles" of
deletionism are largely unwritten, and are determined by a small faction of
people who hang out on VfD. Don't worry, these new contributors will either
be driven away by the deletionists or learn to love Big Brother. Maybe some
of them will even participate in the Two Minutes of Hate we call VfD.
> Somehow, I think you'll find it's the deletionists who've generally
> been here longer, and done the hard yards of actually working on good
> articles, rather than spending their wiki time trying to turn
> Wikipedia into Wikijunkyard.
I don't think that's the case. I just think that things like VfD, speedy
deletions, the difficult undeletion policy, and the abrasiveness of some of
the deletionists (I've been blocked for listing articles on VfU, as well as
for voting Keep on VfD) have caused the vast majority of inclusionists to
give up or become closet inclusionists (i.e. eventualists).
Anthony
> I also vote "keep" more often than you vote "delete". Have you EVER voted
"delete"?
> RickK
Do you really not know? I have voted to delete lots of times. Learn the
facts before you make up lies about someone.
Anthony
You can't get much more involved in the VfD process
than I have been for the last few months, yet I
clearly believe some change is in order. I did no
"bitching" and "complaining" before trying to fix
things, and I am now being accused of acting without
consensus while you have decided to hammer the status
quo back into place and reverted my actions. - SimonP
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Let's make a policy. The policy goes like this:
"If an administrator speedily deletes an article and it then turns out that
the article in question was not a real candidate for speedy deletion, that
administrator is awarded a point.
If an administrator gets more than 3 points during a 3 months period, that
administrator loses admin privilegies."
Very easy. To many bad mistakes and you're out. The exact number of points
and the number of months is not important. Maybe it should be 5 points in 12
months or 2 points in 2 months or whatever. Then the policy need some more
text:
"Articles that are speedily deleted but then restored and kept in some way
are not real candidates for speedy deletion."
I.e. pretend I write a three-line article about some obscure math topic.
Some admin thinks it is rubbish and deletes it. Then a math-guru admin comes
around and restores it. What probably happens is that the admin who did the
deletion realises his or hers mistake. So he or she gets one point.
Borderline cases are put on VFD. In practice it is very easy to determine
whether a speedy deletion was motivated or not.
And then the policy need some important lines to not make anyone angry:
"The intentions of the administrator does not play any role in how points
are awarded. It should be assumed that the admin acted in good faith and
didn't mean any harm to Wikipedia by deleting the article. However, good
intentions affecting Wikipedia in a negative way cannot continue to go
unchecked."
Like noone is angry that newbie sysop deleted four articles about classical
poetry because he or she thought it sounded like rubbish. Mistakes happen.
But if you cannot learn from your mistakes you are not fit for the job.
"The current score tally is kept on [[Wikipedia:Mistaken Speedy Deletions]]"
Because the information has to be recorded some way.
This is an awesome policy. I hope y'all understand what I mean even if it is
late and writing legal sounding texts in English is hard. I'm not a newbie,
I'm not being sarcastic/ironic and this proposal is serious. And I think it
is good. But what do YOU think?
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.com/
In a test of my suggestion I have moved six recent
debates that didn't conform to current policies to
[[Wikipedia:VfD decisions not backed by current
policies]].
- SimonP
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
In the course of less than an hour I have come across one speedy delete
notice, two Wiktionary move notices, and a VfD notice, all attached to new
short mathematics pages. All of which would properly be labelled stubs.
The Wikipedians responsible don't have specialist knowledge - they seem to
feel that remedies for stubs other than stub notices should exist (and in
one case, thinks that if it looks like a typographjc mess, it must be
nonsense).
As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia still needs stubs to grow, precisely in
areas where it is currently weak.
Charles