Yeah, but that won't work. It needs at least an exception for speedy
deletion. Slowly I'm starting to notice im heading more in the
direction of hardcore inclusionists, on grounds off [[WP:HARMLESS]]
and [[WP:USEFULL]], and stop seeing the use of notability guidelines.
That said, even if only 1 in 5 AfD deletions represent true consensus,
then that would still amount to about 6 discussions for which we
require full community consensus a day, and I just think and hope our
community would like to have some time left to write articles instead
of making decissions on deleting articles.
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Alvaro García <alvareo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It would be great that, instead of deleting an
article, the usual
deleters would be given a 'flag as source-less/needs improvement'
where it would go to a Wikipedia section of poor articles, where
people who know would improve them.
And, no article, in whatever section, could be deleted unless there's
a general consensus.
--
Alvaro
On 13-01-2009, at 5:22, Noah Salzman <noah(a)salzman.net> wrote:
On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:10 AM, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
These sub-surface articles would not be
googleable let's say, so
reader
wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are "acceptable" in the
mainstream,
but they would be present for people already in-world to read and
edit.
Makes sense to me. If the "articles for deletion" process is usurped
by the "articles for purgatory" process then it transforms the debate
entirely. If you keep losing at chess than change the game to
checkers, rather than continuing to complain about losing at chess.
Deletion could remain a standard process but with much clearer and
stricter guidelines. Perhaps, it could be changed to "innocent until
proven guilty" as opposed to the deletion process now where the
defendant has to do a ton of busy work to save a "guilt-assumed"
article.
As someone somewhat removed from the politics of the project, my main
question is what does the step-by-step process look like for making
this change happen? I imagine there is more than one path: grass roots
consensus building vs lobbying The Powers That Be?
My apologies if that is an amusingly naive way of putting it.
--Noah--
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l