On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 18:21:38 +0000, "Andrew Gray"
<shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
(I don't think we're assuming bad faith so much
as we're assuming
laziness... or that they assume good faith of the taggers too much!)
Well, yes, or some combination of good intentions and bad
experience.
Indeed. However, bad speedy tagging - through
misunderstanding or
overenthusiasm - is inevitable, so our admins are always going to have
to stay on their toes and make judgements as to whether or not
deletion is appropriate. If we make the tagging better, maybe they'll
only have to discard 5% of them and not 50%. But there'll still be
discards or proddings or whatever, and there will be enough of them
they still need to treat it as likely.
Sure. The unanswerable question, at this stage, is how many invalid
speedy tags are correctly either untagged or userfied or whatever by
the admins toiling away at CAT:CSD? I would imagine the chances of
error rise on the days when the backlog is in the hundreds, and I
don't think that's necessarily fixable, we all make more mistakes
when we feel under pressure even if the pressure is self-imposed.
How about we split CSD, to reflect these two sides?
i) Material for "urgent deletion"
ii) Material for "simple deletion"
Material in i) would be vandalism, attack pages, etc etc; ii) would be
all the gibberish and spam and vanity and dead redirects and other
housekeeping.
Critically, because of the nature of the "bad calls", discussed above,
we have a nice split whereby material in i) *can* easily be knocked
off quickly without needing to dig too far - because it is much more
likely to be legitimately deletable - and material in ii), which we
accept may get backlogged and may hang around for some time, is the
material that we are likely to need to spend more time looking at.
ii would tend to become a sort of "speedy PROD", I guess; it gets
tagged and might go in ten minutes, might be a day. Certainly this
sort of material conceptually resembles PROD a lot... the split
between CSD.ii and PROD is an open question. We might end up merging
the two approaches somehow, but that's another matter.
----
How does that sound? I suspect it would solve a lot of the problems
relating to real or presumed urgency, and would keep people from
feeling they had to move fast on disputable material. It would also
allow us to expedite dealing with the actually damaging stuff, which
is a plus in anyone's book.
It works for me, anyway. What I want to see is a system where
damaging and unambiguous crap (attack pages, copyright violations,
test pages, obscenity and the like) is dispatched as fast as
possible, with the balance being given at least a little bit of
thought.
The problem is that unsourced biographies are in my view dangerous,
and many of these are actually user pages created "by mistake"
(ahem) in mainspace. I don't know how we deal with that in your
proposed system, but that does not mean it is a fundamentally bad
idea, actually I think it's a fundamentally *good* idea.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG