What established policy do you mean? The deletion policy? In any case, I
definitely agree. I don't know how anyone thinks removing listings from
VFD is somehow furthering the building of an encyclopedia. And in any
case, VFD operates on community consensus. If some users want every
article with the word "green" deleted, they're free to make the
frivolous listings, and make frivolous votes.
I think you people are going overboard with your "what if"s. Remember
assume good faith? Remember our perennial optimism in how the good users
will always outnumber the bad? That has to be applied in this case.
Sure, lots of us avoid VFD. I got sick of it after handling the deletion
of entries everyday (see my user page for why). But if somebody was to
go around listing every article containing the word "green" for
deletion, I'd vote "keep". I'd file a case with the arbitration
committee.
See, we all agree we want to build an encyclopedia. But some of us
disagree on how to build it. Some think we should use bricks of only one
colour. Some think we should take out a few defective bricks and replace
them with better ones. Some think we should repair the defective bricks
instead. Some think we shouldn't use bricks at all and use old-fashioned
wood. The thing is, if we let anyone do what they damn want, will the
encyclopedia be an architectual masterpiece? Doubtful. It may not even
be an encyclopedia. But if we structure things around a blueprint, and
have foremen to oversee the process, while still allowing any Tom, Dick
and Harry to build the encyclopedia, things will turn out far nicer.
My point? Maybe the builders can't agree on the blueprint - is it
something to stick exactly to or something flexible? In the case of
guidelines such as [[What Wikipedia is not]], it does not claim to be a
definitive guide of what should be criteria for inclusion - "Please feel
free to continue adding to this list as we discover interesting new ways
of not writing encyclopedia articles." So I think that this is why we
have VFD. If not covered by existing policy, VFD is where we debate the
article's inclusion. I propose articles clearly invalid under policy
should go onto the proposed Purgatory page (see [[Wikipedia:Preliminary
Deletion]]) if it is agreed upon, or moved to speedy deletes if it's a
clear candidate for such.
Just because an article doesn't fall under any existing criteria in
policy for inclusion/deletion does not render it invalid from deletion.
VFD exists to serve the community, not policy. Policy and VFD are the
means to an end, not an end in themselves.
And if people really are committing mass transgressions of policy, I see
no reason to huff and puff about it in private where they can't hear us.
Explain to them directly how they are violating policy - "Ok, while you
think an article having the word 'green' isn't encyclopedic, the
article's topic is certainly listed under Policy X as a valid
encyclopedic topic. Maybe we should discuss this on the article's talk
page, but the usage of the word 'green' isn't an excuse for utter
removal." That's how things should be going (IMO).
If they don't listen, bring it up on RFC, mediation or arbitration. If
the word "green" really isn't an excuse for deletion, there will be many
who agree with you.
In case my opinion of VFD isn't clear enough yet, I think it's a
necessary evil. Sure, the whole community isn't involved, but if there's
a spate of articles unfairly being deleted, there will be an outcry, and
they will make themselves heard, and the whole community will be up in
arms. That's one good thing about extremist inclusionists - they have a
way of drawing people to something.
And for those who are constantly moaning about how evil VFD is and how
we don't need it, I have one question - what do we do with articles that
aren't obvious copyvios, speedies, etc.? Do we keep a twenty-page long
article on George Washington's underwear? How do we decide its worth for
inclusion? I do understand that these are few, but they do exist (the
prime example being Eric B. and Rakim, who's been surprisingly quiet
recently).
John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])
Nicholas Knight wrote:
Rebecca wrote:
If VFD does not have the consensus support of the
community, then why
not stop bitching here, and go write up a proposal to get rid of it?
And lets see how far it gets.
Of course, you won't do that, because you know what the odds of
success are - which reflects the feelings of the community on this
issue.
Stop ascribing positions to me which I do not hold. I don't want VFD
to go away, I want it to operate according to ALREADY ESTABLISHED
policy. If anything, I want the extremists on both sides abusing it to
further their own agendas to go away so actual work can get done.