Guy writes:
We are all inclusionists, otherwise we would not be
here in the first place.
The difference is just where we place the bar for inclusion...
I like this :-) It should go right below a quote about how "the art
of writing an encyclopedia is deciding what to leave out"
On 7/15/07, Charlotte Webb <charlottethewebb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Even speaking as someone who always got annoyed as
hell at people who
put an AFD tag on something and then openly admit they have no desire
to see it deleted (usually they just want what they think will be a
permanently binding "to merge or not to merge") I still kinda sorta
agree with what you're saying about de-emphasizing the possible
outcome of deletion.
We have "good article review" and "featured article review". Maybe
the
next step is to shut down the AFD process and replace it with some
sort of "shitty article review" with the expectation that people
actually familiarize themselves with the article content, and try also
to familiarize themselves (as best they can) with the subject before
commenting.
An added "learning curve" if you will could reduce the amount of
derogatory drive-by "NN, delete" voters. For each article, rather than
asking people whether they think something is "deletable", we should
focus on less destructive options such as merging, removing unsourced
material, finding new sources, adding new material, picking up the
slack and actually trying to succeed where the original writer failed.
Yes. Based on topic alone, one should be able to figure out which few
articles are suitable for sending directly to an AfD discussion; if
the topic could potentially have a good encyclopedic article, or a
section or sentence in one, it should not go to AfD. If the topic
might in itself be deletable - neologisms, OR, spam - then it could.
Treating a 3-year-old 5000-word article the same way as a one-day
one-paragraph article ---- the idea that the former could possible be
eligible for speedy deletion, or that a 5-day deletion discussion
without actively tracking down original authors is appropriate ---- is
poor form. While we don't want the typical AfD process to be made
longer, we need to have a very different, longer-timeframe process for
figuring out how to be good stewards of information and history that
has been part of Wikipedia for a while... even when changing standards
suggest such material may no longer merit main-namespace keywords.
++SJ