Alex Schenck wrote:
Okay, apparently, we have a few problems here.
Apparently :-)
There are two very important pages on meta. Check
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletionist
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism
I think you run into this.
Despite praise from various sources, several other
Meta people have
complained that this project is doing more harm than good. While I of course
completely disagree with that notion, I feel that I ought to let out some
steam.
I think most of us are supportive with the idea of "categorizing" and
"organising".
However, a couple of things do not have support, such as
* deleting historical articles (of course, newbies can not understand
the importance dinosaurs give to these pages. Note that for myself, a
newbie may be someone who joined the projects less than 3 years ago)
* deleting redirections (many pages are linked from other projects or
outside websites). Redirections may seem to come from nowhere, but they
are actually useful
* Qualifying as "foreign" languages everything that is not english. Mind
you, for the majority of editors on meta, "english" is "foreign". In
short, you take a very biaised stance, of saying meta is english, the
rest of it is foreign. Touchy...
Meta right now is horrible. Really, it is. People need
to stop kidding
themselves and understand that the way that it is in right now is akin to a
trash heap. Sure, there are some good things on Meta, but the vast majority
is unorganized rubbish that could probably be put away in an archive and
forgotten about until cyber-archaeologists come along and sift through it
and thing that they're artifacts.
Another very touchy point my dear.
The place has been used by some of us for 3 years or even more. The
point is that when you say the place is trash, this is not very nice to
all those who have been trying to keep the place a bit organised at least.
Another point is that a group of editors who go to meta and say they are
gonna reorganised everything, change policies, fix rules, set up
procedures.... especially when several in this group are actually not
meta editors (or extremely recent meta editors).... will necessarily
come to meet the local more lazy population.
You've got to be careful that there are inhabitants over there; they
support that you come clean the home. But necessarily that you delete
their village to make an entire new town. I hope you see what I mean :)
I mean, come on. Sure, this place has a
lot of history of Wikimedia, but if things need to be
kept, why can't they
be kept in a more orderly fashion?
We support more order. Order does not necessarily mean put things in the
trash. That is the problem.
Another thing: people have been complaining about
speedy deletions and that
they violate Meta policy. Can I be brutally honest? Meta is a ghost wiki and
the policies aren't nearly as important as they are on local projects. When
people start complaining that deletion of unused images such as pornography
is out of process, I cringe. No one is going to miss some of these things.
I would absolutely support deletion of pornographic images. But
generally, yes, be careful that the meta policies are NOT necessarily
your project policies. And should not be.
I understand that some people have objected to some
things which I have
deleted. However, those things can get restored, and besides, any project
which requires a massive overhaul will experience errors.
Again, I do not support keeping pornographic images. But do not forget
that images CAN NOT be restored.
Frankly, I've got better things to do than
completely overhaul Meta. I'm
doing this for the greater good of Wikimedia's projects. People are afraid
to touch Meta because it is a massive unorganized heap. I'm trying to change
that, and I've gotten a go-ahead from the top.
Ahhhhh; the go-ahead of the top. I will be equally brutal. The go-ahead
of the top has no authority on meta. The community has.
If people are going to
complain that a policy on a nearly abandoned wiki is
not followed over
getting things, you know... accomplished (gee, what a thought), then why am
I and thirteen other editors (two of which have decided to quit the project)
wasting our time like this?
I do not think meta qualifies as a nearly abandoned wiki...
For the meantime, I will continue this project, but I
would like to propose
a solution: an archive wiki of Meta. Move *everything* on Meta over to this
archive. Start fresh. The archive will contain all things that Meta used to
have, so nothing will just disappear, and someone else can go through the
archive if they really feel like it and find whatever they're looking for. I
promise I won't touch that archive. Plus, anything that is current can be
kept on Meta as is. Let Meta be useful again instead of a depository of crap
dotted with worthwhile discussions and essays.
Possibly. But absolutely all pages which are deleted from meta should
have redirections to the archive meta, so that information link is not
broken.
--Alex
I want to be clear that I support your project of organisation and
categorization. What I do not support is blind deletion and generally
the feeling of a squad investing meta and telling us what they do is for
our own good. Could we find an agreement in between ?
Ant