On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 6:42 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/03/2008, David Goodman
<dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
At least for what I can do best, when I see
someone asserted to be a
notable author without any evidence, I look. Depending on what I find,
I act to keep or delete. I follow the evidence: I've done 2 searches
for things at AfD in the last 2 days, where people were !voting both
ways without any basis but their intuition--in each case I looked
properly, found nothing really adequate, laid out what I did find,
and said delete or weak delete. Only when I find enough for a keep,
do I say keep.
I should point out, by the way, that although I consider AFD's culture
severely problematic - the siege mentality and consequent
newbie-biting having become so bad as to make international press - I
fully understand how it got that way. Anyone who thinks they're an
"inclusionist" - go do Special:Newpages patrol for a while. It's a
firehose of sewage. Over 50% of new articles are shot on sight, and
they fully deserve it. Most of what hits AFD deserves to die as
quickly as possible too. Oh dear Lord it's awful. No wonder some
editors seem to go on mad rampages with a machete through the article
space.
- d.
_______________________________________________
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
Don't get me started on newpages. It is truely horrible. Apart from
the bot-like entries of new villages in somewhere, new astroids, or
sports players from template, I do think 60 to 80 % should be deleted.
And of that, 50% as crystal clear speedies. We need plenty more
carefull, deliberate, newpage patrollers. The problem is, the pages
that should be kept, about half of those look just as bad as the
really horrible ones. And getting one page to a more or less decent
standard, slightly refd, tagged, and ready to enter the motherload,
takes me as much time as about 20 good, or about 8 speedy pages. And
then, when you *do* mess up (and I do, every once in a while), the
comment that I do more to break down wikipedia then to build it up is
not exactly encouraging.