Yes but determining who decides what is "good" and what is "crap" is
the basic problem here. The deletion process isn't perfect but it's
better than individual admins or users deciding what should be
"rescued" and what shouldn't be. The whole purpose of the deletion
process is to get community consensus as to whether an article should
be kept or not. It's attempting to balance inclusionists like yourself
and deletionists like me. If a better system can be devised,
wonderful, but ditching it altogether is a bit rash and foolhardy to
me. Mike
On 1/29/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/28/06, Haukur Þorgeirsson <haukurth(a)hi.is>
wrote:
The problem is that some people treat the process oriented requests as
content-oriented and say: "No, we won't undelete it - it doesn't look like
a worthwhile article to me." And some people treat the content-oriented
requests as process-oriented and say: "No, we can't undelete it because
the AfD was legit."
This is not good, DRV has to be able to handle both types of requests
sensibly.
No. We should never restore crap content, no matter how mucked up the
process was that deleted it, and we should always restore good
content, no matter how perfectly the process that deleted it was
followed.
Anything else is putting process before the encyclopedia.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l