There's a need for VfD or something like it.
1) Some have argued that most of the actual deletions need not be and
in most cases should not be actual page deletions. They can, for
example, often be redirects. The thing, is that it doesn't matter
whether the disposition is a very ruthless edit, making the page into a
redirect, or deleting the page. The issue is that casual observer who
is not a subject expert, but is a savvy Wikipedian, looks at a page and
thinks "this looks like obvious garbage that probably ought to go."
When a page is to be effectively deleted and you're NOT absolutely
sure, there needs to be a place to take it to where a few other
eyeballs can look at it, where there is a high probability of getting a
few comments and where things take place in a well-defined time frame.
2) In my subjective opinion, it seems to me that some of the criticism
that is ostensible being directed at the VfD process is, in reality,
directed against individuals. That may be well be a misperception, but
it is my perception.
3) There is such a thing as a VfD regular. VfD regulars have developed
a clubby atmosphere. VfD regulars have developed a very unfortunate
tendency to talk as if they were in an executive session where the
author was absent when in fact the author of the article has been all
but invited to the meeting. Frank and jocular expressions of disgust at
repetitive situations are common. These have reached the point of being
Bad Things, and I think the Dartmouth affair and its aftermath show it.
So many people now enjoy piling on to anything Dartmouth that an
article about the wildlife of Dart'''moor''' was recently mentioned in
an "Oh, no, not another" context by someone who apparently couldn't be
bothered to look up Dartmoor in Wikipedia, on the Web, in a dictionary
or atlas, or anywhere else.
4) In theory, it seems to me, 95% of what's done in VfD could be done
by putting a note on the talk page of, say, [[The Law of Success]]
saying "I'm think this article is garbage and I'm going to make it into
#REDIRECT [[Napoleon Hill]]." The problem is that people really do
watch and respond to VfD postings, whereas article Talk pages on
garbage articles are not being tracked and do not get the benefit of
many eyes.
5) VfD does generate serious discussions. In many cases they are
thoughtful discussions. The outcome is rarely predictable and the
effect in many cases is beneficial.
VfD has problems. To say "It's broken" is overstating the case, and
figuring out what need to be done to improve it is not trivial or
obvious, since a lot of the sturm and drang is the result of genuine
differences in opinion about what the content of Wikipedia ought to be.
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
> > 1. There is no reason to delete any of the pages there at all.
> > Copyvios already has a special page. And there is also already
> > candidates for speedy deletion and simple vandalism that is deleted on
> > sight.
>
>Please provide examples. Speedy deletions are for contributions that
>don't make sense. VfD is for those that do but aren't encyclopedic.
Examples of what? Examples of what would happen in the theoretical situation
that articles wasn't deleted due to VfD?
> > 2. Everyone using that page to delete articles is sabotaging Wikipedia
> > and should be blocked.
>
>I will not argue with trolls, I will not argue with trolls, I will not
>argue with trolls...
I'd like to retract that statement because "sabotaging" implies intent.
However, the outcome is unfortunately the same even if the intention is
good.
> > 4. Articles about "non-notable" stuff does not hurt Wikipedia. Since
> > noone cares about the stuff, noone will link to it and noone will
> > search for it and NOONE will ever see it!
>
>A keyword search can easily bring up non-notable articles. When somebody
>sees an entry resembling a blog posting, what will they think of Wikipedia?
Really? Looking at VfD I couldn't find very many articles that probably had
been indexed by Google. But the article Puchland that most on the people on
VfD wants to delete ought to have been indexed because it has been there
since 2003.
Google can't bring it up somehow. Yahoo can, but wont unless the search is
specific ("israel forum" works i.e.). And if I made such a search, I'm sure
I would be more satisfied with a decent description of an online-forum than
no hits at all.
Hypothetically, if every person that lists an article on VfD also listed how
they encountered the article, what would be the most common methods of
encountering for those articles that ALSO are deleted? I guess:
1. Recent changes 90%
2. Checking user contributions of specific users. 7%
3. Links from specific user's pages. 3%
And maybe once in a blue moon someone would say "encountered it while
searching for something else". Wikipedia is very good at organising itself
automagically and that is why VfD is not needed.
If there was a function that counted page hits this assertion could be
proven. Especially if it only counted page hits from users that are not
logged in. Then maybe people would realise it is not worth the time, effort
and flames to save a handful of people from visiting a page that they might
or might not wanted to see.
Btw, if you are sure that there is a method that "can easily bring up
non-notable articles", please explain what it is. Lets also say that
"easily" in this context means:
1. Does not involve the "Wikipedia:" or "Special:"-namespace.
2. A sucess rate of 5% (debatable) or higher.
3. The method is not restricted to a certain area of Wikipedia.
Tricky, isn't it? :)
> > 6. And cause those articles are never read by anyone it doesn't hurt
> > to remove them from Wikipedia. But that's not why vfd is sabotaging
> > Wikipedia. It is because 50-80% of the articles listed there should
> > not and will not be deleted. The authors of those articles are forced
> > to defend their work to people that just haven't got a clue and never
> > will. Then they have to engage in more pointless arguing with the
> > deletionists just to prevent them from destroying Wikipedia!
>
>Please provide examples. A good deal of the time, the authors don't
>defend their works. Contrary to common belief, very few people who visit
>VfD are rabid deletionists who will vote delete for an arbitrary reason.
>Most of us actually take the time to Google the article's subject, etc.
>The author doesn't have to do much. I've VfDed a lot of articles in my
>time, and a lot of them were kept, not thanks to the author's
>intervention, but the research of other kind-hearted Wikipedians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vfd#Maine_Mall_--_Add_to_this_discussionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vfd#Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America__--_Add_…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vfd#Pyle_MS_--_Add_to_this_discussionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vfd#Dan_O.27Connor_--_Add_to_this_discussionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vfd#Most_visited_websites_--_Add_to_this_discu…
etc...
1. A lot of time was wasted by the persons listing those pages.
2. Some voluntarily wastes their time by voting. Their life, their problem.
3. VfD's problem is that XX% of those that voted "keep" did not do it
because they enjoy wasting time but because they feel that they are forced
to defend good articles from being destroyed. Atleast poor "anthony (see
warning)", who voted "keep" 38 times, didn't really seem to enjoy the
process.
> > 7. The Wikipedia concept is that anyone can edit a page and that only
> > those who edits a page gets to determine what information goes into a
> > page. Its like "do it yourself cause you can't tell anyone else what
> > to do cause there is no way to force them to do it." Now that concept
> > doesn't work with vfd cause someone can say "uuuh.. delete unless it
> > is improved in a week.". That person basically forces those who care
> > about the article to write what they know about it or it will be
> > killed. It is not fair at all.
>
>Well, honestly, tell me, what is there to write about someone's smelly
>socks? If it's a notable article, it will be improved anyway. Are you
>suggesting we tolerate garbage just because the garbage's topic is
>something notable? Honestly, if I had to pick between deleting a
1. You believe there is a defintion for what garbage is. There is not. What
you call garbage is what others call stubs.
2. If we didnt allow garbage, Wikipedia wouldn't be what it is. If we do not
continue to allow garbage, Wikipedia will not grow.
>(hypothetical) article on Ronald Reagan which is full of unrelated
>nonsense about doing drugs or keeping it in the hopes somebody would
Is this a straw man? Anyway, I find it easier to do: click edit, select all,
press delete, write "Ronald Reagan was USA:s president 1984-1992", press
save than to do: search for a non-existant article about an American
president, click edit, write the same stuff, press save.
Especially the searching and finding of non-existant articles about stuff
I'm not at all interested in is so annoying.
>improve it, I'd do the former without skipping a beat. Having an article
>only gives the impression to readers that we tolerate junk. I'd rather
We do tolerate "junk". And if you mean that VfD is somehow effecting the
"junk"-level of Wikipedia then you are wrong. There are so many articles
that could have been listed on VfD but aren't just because there are so many
articles that is added each day.
You also sound very arrogant when you use the words "junk" and "garbage" in
these contexts.
> > 8. As an example:
> >
> > NASA Project Gemini Familiarization Manual -- Add to this discussion
> >
> > The flight manual for the Gemini spacecraft - excellent Wikisource
> > material. Transwiki and delete --Rlandmann 00:33, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
> >
> > * Transwiki and delete. Geogre 00:54, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
> > * Transwiki and delete. GeneralPatton 00:55, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
> > * Have moved article to Wikisource. Please Delete DarylC 2 Sep 2004
> >
> > Which of these comments is a total waste of everyones time?
> > Rlandmann's is because despite the fact that he had an excellent idea
> > he was to damn lazy to carry it out himself as he easily could. Geogre
> > and GeneralPatton just seem to show off their excellent talents in
> > agreeing. Finally, DarylC, the primary author of the page actually
> > does some work and moves the article. Very good DarylC.
> >
> > The problem with this is that atleast thousand people have been forced
> > to read this meaningless junk because Rlandmann didn't place the
> > suggestion to transwiki on the article's talk page which would have
> > been the right thing to do.
>
>You are missing the whole point of VfD. The point is to ask a wide
>audience - that "thousand people" - "Is this article worth keeping, or
>do we move it elsewhere/delete it?". The point of VfD is consensus.
>Placing the request on the Talk leads to a very very limited audience -
>how many Wikipedians read Talk pages on a regular basis? And unitarily
>moving it is even worse.
1. Rlandmann asked thousand people if NASA Project Gemini Familiarization
Manual should be "transwikied"... 3 people responded. Doesnt seem very
efficient.
2. To WHO does it matter what happens with NASA Project Gemini
Familiarization Manual? To the ones who read that article's talk page.
3. If someone gets a consensus consisting of the article's talk page's
audience which includes the primary author of the page. Wouldn't then that
consensus have as much if not more weight than a consensus received from
VfD?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To those who believe that VfD is flawed, could this idea or some alteration
of it be a way to improve it?
> > 10. The only way to fix vfd would be to allow people to cast the
> > identical vote on range of articles listed there. Then you would be
> > able to vote "keep doesn't hurt wikipedia" (or whatever) on each and
> > every article.
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
Agree wholeheartedly, the page is a stupid waste of time and troll bait.
Noone in their right mind gets involved in it unless they have to cause the
deletionists is trying to delete a page you have created / authored. The
freaky things you see there are just disgusting.
1. There is no reason to delete any of the pages there at all. Copyvios
already has a special page. And there is also already candidates for speedy
deletion and simple vandalism that is deleted on sight.
2. Everyone using that page to delete articles is sabotaging Wikipedia and
should be blocked.
3. The page itself should be deleted since it just can't be fixed.
4. Articles about "non-notable" stuff does not hurt Wikipedia. Since noone
cares about the stuff, noone will link to it and noone will search for it
and NOONE will ever see it!
5. Except for people that actually GO AND LOOK for useless articles. But if
you do, it's your own fault that you find them. Casual surfers and
non-wikipedians wont find them.
6. And cause those articles are never read by anyone it doesn't hurt to
remove them from Wikipedia. But that's not why vfd is sabotaging Wikipedia.
It is because 50-80% of the articles listed there should not and will not be
deleted. The authors of those articles are forced to defend their work to
people that just haven't got a clue and never will. Then they have to engage
in more pointless arguing with the deletionists just to prevent them from
destroying Wikipedia!
7. The Wikipedia concept is that anyone can edit a page and that only those
who edits a page gets to determine what information goes into a page. Its
like "do it yourself cause you can't tell anyone else what to do cause there
is no way to force them to do it." Now that concept doesn't work with vfd
cause someone can say "uuuh.. delete unless it is improved in a week.". That
person basically forces those who care about the article to write what they
know about it or it will be killed. It is not fair at all.
8. As an example:
NASA Project Gemini Familiarization Manual -- Add to this discussion
The flight manual for the Gemini spacecraft - excellent Wikisource material.
Transwiki and delete --Rlandmann 00:33, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
* Transwiki and delete. Geogre 00:54, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
* Transwiki and delete. GeneralPatton 00:55, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
* Have moved article to Wikisource. Please Delete DarylC 2 Sep 2004
Which of these comments is a total waste of everyones time? Rlandmann's is
because despite the fact that he had an excellent idea he was to damn lazy
to carry it out himself as he easily could. Geogre and GeneralPatton just
seem to show off their excellent talents in agreeing. Finally, DarylC, the
primary author of the page actually does some work and moves the article.
Very good DarylC.
The problem with this is that atleast thousand people have been forced to
read this meaningless junk because Rlandmann didn't place the suggestion to
transwiki on the article's talk page which would have been the right thing
to do.
9. Example2: SimonP decided to list Puchland. Puchland seem to be a minor
webforum that nobody cares about. Because of point 4 above, this listing
too, is completele useless. And as in point 8 the proper way would have been
to propose deletion on that articles talk page. Noone but those concerned
should be the ones taking the decision.
10. The only way to fix vfd would be to allow people to cast the identical
vote on range of articles listed there. Then you would be able to vote
"keep doesn't hurt wikipedia" (or whatever) on each and every article.
However, the deletionists would never allow such an option because it only
takes a handful of people to vote in that way for the whole system to break
down.
IMHO, IANAL, etc, w/e
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
The Maimonides issue has spun completely out of control, like many other
pages where RK decides to take over. He deposits a lot of research, most of
which is only of marginal relevance to the issue, and causes long and
heated debates on talk pages whether these insertions are justified. Often,
vital POVs are not represented, because RK favours particular sources for
his research and (?conveniently) forgets to mention that these POVs exist.
I do not argue with Robert over pages that don't have my interest, but we
recently had a major flurry over [[Artscroll]], a Jewish publisher of
religious texts. Robert wanted to insert allegations expressed on mailing
lists concerning the historicity and factuality of the content of many of
these books. While some of these allegations came from respectable sources,
some others were simple paranoid mumblings by mailinglist contributors.
And so it carries on. RK moves his focus to a different page, annoys a few
vested contributors, and spins off another discussion. This has been the
stuff of various mediation and arbitration requests, including a pending
one, and I'm seriously wondering where this is heading.
[[User:Jfdwolff]]
------------------------------------
jfdwolff(a)doctors.org.uk
------------------------------------
FYI: The Dibner Library at the Smithonian has many good images of
people, many of them in the PD by age. I asked for clearance to use
Dibner Library images on wikipedia. Here's the result.
Magnus
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Smithsonian Libraries image request
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 10:56:23 -0400
From: Erin Clements <ClementsE(a)si.edu>
To: <magnus.manske(a)web.de>
Dear Mr. Manske,
For us to feel comfortable having the Dibner Portraits on Wikipedia, we would prefer this credit line:
"Image reproduced courtesy of the Smithsonian Institution Libraries from Scientific Identity, Portraits from the Dibner Library of the History of Science and Technology"
with a direct link to this site:http://www.sil.si.edu/digitalcollections/hst/scientific-identity/index…
We would like this line in lieu of "This image has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder, its copyright has expired, or it is ineligible for copyright. This applies worldwide."
We will forego the standard permissions form. However, please keep in mind that the modern (post-1926) portraits are on our site under Fair Use policies for a non-profit educational project. If they are used in other ventures, valid copyrights may need to be cleared.
Thank you for your interest in our collections,
Erin E. Clements
New Media Office, Smithsonian Institution Libraries
PO Box 37012 MRC 154
Washington, DC 20013-7012
p. 202.633.1708** new number
f. 202.786.2861
clementse(a)si.edu
>>> Magnus Manske <magnus.manske(a)web.de> 09/02/04 03:17AM >>>
Dear Mr. Clements,
first, let me thank you for your answer. Yes, wikipedia would very much
like to continue using images from your great resource. Please sent me
the permission form and credit line. As you no doubt have seen on the
Dumas image page, we already do link back to your site containing the
image, but we will of course extend/modify that credit according to your
request.
One point, however, remains: According to U.S. copyright law, a mere
reproduction of an image in the public domain *does* remain in the PD,
contrary claims notwithstanding. Only a "creative act" could change that
status, and scanning or (digital) photographic reproduction, which is
apparently the case for your image collection, does not constitute such
an act. Thus, the claim on the Dumas image page is correct.
Of course, we will cite the source of *all* your images with your credit
line, public domain or not. Your permission and the PD are, after all,
not mutually exclusive; the PD only extends any permission where
copyright law allows (and demands) it.
Yours,
Magnus Manske
Erin Clements wrote:
>Dear Mr. Manske,
>
>I am writing in response to your digital image request below. We would be happy for you to include images from our Scientific Portrait collection on Wikipedia. However, we do ask that proper credit is given for the images and that you complete a permissions form. Even if the works in question are a part of the public domain, the digital images which you are using are not. Therefore, I do question the line under this picture:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jean_Baptiste_Andr%E9_Dumas.jpg
>which states that the image has been released into the public domain. Please refer here for more information: http://www.sil.si.edu/permissions/
>
>If Wikipedia would like to continue using, please let me know and I would be happy to provide you with the permission form and proper credit line.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>
>From: Magnus Manske <magnus.manske(a)web.de>
>To: <LIBMAIL(a)si.edu>
>Date: 7/29/04 9:29AM
>Subject: Copyright status of images
>
>Hello,
>
>I am a volunteer for Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>(http://www.wikipedia.org ). Recently, I have begun to include portraits
>from your excellent "Dibner Library of the History of Science and
>Technology" into the appropriate articles.
>
>Example : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerardus_Joannes_Vossius
>
>While most of these images are in the public domain by age (as mere
>scanning does not change the copyright status), there have been some
>concerns especially about the "newer" ones.
>
>Wikipedia itself is a strictly non-commercial project - all contents is
>freely available and will remain so. However, all Wikipedia material is
>available under the GNU Free Documentation License (see
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights ), which allows for
>commercial use. The information, however, will always stay free (as in
>free speech).
>
>The Wikipedia project would very much like to use all the Dibner Library
>images to complement its biography articles. We would, of course, link
>back to your site from every such image; in fact, we already do (click
>on the Vossius image from the link above) where we use them. It would be
>great if you could officially release the Dibner images under GFDL (or
>in the public domain); if not, please suggest an alternative that would
>be acceptable to you.
>
>Thank you in advance,
>Magnus Manske
>
>
>Erin E. Clements, Permissions Coordinator
>New Media Office, Smithsonian Institution Libraries
>PO Box 37012 MRC 154
>Washington, DC 20013-7012
>p. 202.633.1708** new number
>f. 202.786.2861
>clementse(a)si.edu
>
>
>
>
>
--- "Chris Wood" <standsongrace(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>Just because an article is not up to standard does not mean
>it should be deleted, rather, it should be improved.
Chris, I think we are using the word "standard" in two different
interpretations. I concur one hundred percent that a poorly-written
article should not be deleted for that reason, but improved. You're
absolutely right on that. However, the way I used the word "standard"
was as a "minimum requirement." Our minimum requirements are a set of
hurdles an article must sail over -- or barely clamber over, just so
long as it goes over the bar and not under it. Those hurdles are found
at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not and
similar policy pages. In that meaning of the word, an article
absolutely *must* be up to standard or it goes. If it fails the "What
Wikipedia is not" test, it doesn't meet our minimum standards for
inclusion and should be deleted.
Also, I think you might be operating under a misperception of normal
VfD operations. Sometimes well-meaning newcomers do bring articles to
VfD not because it is an invalid type of article, but simply because
they think the article stinks. When that happens you can be sure a
regular will quickly (and often, politely) inform them that VfD is not
for differences of opinion on article content. The article is kept and
sent to cleanup. Exactly what should happen. Many articles also get
an accelerated version of Cleanup because they were listed on VfD,
resulting in the Wikipedia keeping a drastically improved article.
Trust me, VfD is *not* populated by slummy, scummy vultures waiting to
tear an article apart. You'll find much improving of articles taking
place there, along with a lot of honest evaluations of whether or not
articles meet the standards we have set.
In my earlier e-mail, I wrote:
> What types of articles get deleted on VfD? Vanity pages,
> advertisements, original research, source material, medical advice,
> memorials to deceased friends, stories that received a small article
> on page 16 of their local newspaper years ago, political rants, game
> guides, neologisms, hoaxes, etc. Anything that doesn't belong in an
> encyclopedia. Standards. It's all about standards.
Chris Wood responded:
>What are these "standards" you mention? They aren't Wikipedia policy.
I believe we do have policies that cover everything in that list and
more. Over half of that list is covered at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not The
others are covered in related policies. It is indeed Wikipedia policy
that I was referring to when I mentioned standards.
I think the way we each intended the word "standard" caused us to be
using the same word but talking about different things. You're right
in that we don't have policies requiring a certain word count, or
reading level, or anything of that nature. That's not what I meant
by "standard." What I meant was what I described above.
In that sense, we certainly do have standards for articles to even
qualify for inclusion in the Wikipedia. Granted, most of them are in
the form of a negative (must not be a Candidate for Speedy Deletion,
see list for details; must not be What Wikipedia is not, see list for
details; etc.). In many instances it wouldn't matter if the
information is factual or not -- the mere type of "article" it is
automatically qualifies it for deletion. An advertisement may contain
all factual information, but it does not meet the standards for
inclusion in Wikipedia because it is an ad. A FAQ may contain all
factual information, but it does not meet the standards of inclusion in
Wikipedia because it is a FAQ.
It is the cases where an article doesn't qualify for Speedy Deletion,
but doesn't belong in the Wikipedia that VfD is supposed to handle. I
think it handles these quite well, and appropriately. Oh, and yes, I
did read the parent post and I (obviously) disagree with it.
Stephen W. Adair
SWAdair
Hello
Some of us have decided to try a new experiment with Wikipedia and Wikibooks:
the Wikipedia Bookclub. Interested participants will read the same book and
discuss it on mIRC, then work together to write an an article about the book
and potential study guides for Wikibooks. I'd like to invite everyone to join
in, pick new books, start new book clubs if you dont like the book this one is
reading, and help make this an enjoyable experiment in producing information
through community cooperation.
The first book we will read is "Andersonville" by MacKinlay Kantor, a
Pulitzer Prize-winning novel about the infamous prison camp for Confederate officers
and political figures after the U.S. Civil War.
For more information, to sign up, to suggest books, or to form parallel clubs
to read other books, go to [[Wikipedia:Wikibookclub]].
Thanks
Danny
Rick K wrote:
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 13:23:56 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Rick <giantsrick13(a)yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: VfD is broken
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <20040905202356.58062.qmail(a)web60604.mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> And what do we do about articles which CAN'T be "improved"? What do we do with such articles as [[Demish ]], [[Anarcho Coronado de Murillo ]], [[Eckvic Culture]], [[Eckvic (god)]], [[Eckvic]], [[Anarcho Coronado de Murillo ]], [[Francisco Vásquez de Coronado]], [[Political Leader of The United Socialist Union ]], [[United Socialist Union]] and [[Coronadists]]?
>
> RickK
>
> Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net> wrote:
> Rebecca wrote:
> >
> > allowing junk to remain in the pedia is not the answer.
>
> Nobody is suggesting to "allow junk to remain in the pedia". People are
> instead suggesting to get rid of the junk by improving it rather than
> deleting it.
>
>
Often, improved junk is still junk. Trying to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse usually results in a fancy sow's ear. Painting the Lada does not make it any less a Lada. Moreover, I do not detect a rapid move by either oldtimers or newbies to clean up the junk, which will languish in wiki's pages until the packrats (sorry - I mean the preservationists) take a holiday.
--
"The opinions expressed here are entirely those of the author, though the management has been paid to keep its mouth shut if he says something they don't like."
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Visit my Wikipedia user page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3ADwindrim
Do you ICQ? I do - 276534369 Magpie
Chris Wood wrote
> A good number of people may and do vote "delete" on inappropriate listings.
> A cadre of deletionists aren't always right.
While this may be true, an equal number of inclusionists vote to keep whatever falls out of someone's pocket. I'm very discouraged by the deletionist-bashing I've seen here the last few. For the most part, it has been divisive and mean-spirited. Deletionists are part of the natural spectrum of editorial
consciousnesses we see at Wiki, and help to ensure that my dog Spot does not have an article of his own.
A comment was made that the number of articles voted for deletion has soared in the past few months. I have noted the same, but I have also noted that, relative to six months ago, the number of articles arriving which are personal vanity pages, joke pages, and advertising pages has also soared. I would
suspect that a numerical analysis would show no greater percentage of pages being deleted than before. I find it much harder to work on VfD these days exactly because of all the personal crud I must plow through - it seems that the disclaimer on the Create and Article page only encourages people to try to
get their own sad history onto Wiki.
The deletionist argument is a red herring. I'm sure most people here do as I do - try to ensure a healthy balance between votes to keep and votes to delete, which are based on a careful read of the article before a decision is reached. Or am I too optimistic?
Denni
--
"The opinions expressed here are entirely those of the author, though the management has been paid to keep its mouth shut if he says something they don't like."
Let's step back and take a look:
Looking over the VfD discussions, I have noticed that in the vast
majority of cases the consensus is very clear one way or the other.
Few listings cause anywhere near a 50/50 split. In the cases where
the consensus is to delete, that means the listing was justified --
the content did not belong in the Wikipedia. Good call, let's get
rid of it and move on. In the cases where the consensus is to keep,
that means that someone was mistaken in their individual assessment
of the article, but the community recognized the value of it.
Those "deletionists" some people like to talk about are the same
people overwhelmingly voting to keep valid articles. They aren't
deletionists; they are investigators. They check to see whether
a listed article belongs in the Wikipedia according to <whisper>
standards </whisper>. Most articles that are listed on VfD do end
up getting deleted, and for good reason -- they didn't belong. The
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it does have <whisper> standards
</whisper>. It disturbs me that I feel I have to whisper the
word "standards" as if it were a dirty word. Those "deletionists"
are merely people willing to take their time to see if an article
meets minimum standards for inclusion in the Wikipedia. The
reason you see so many votes to delete is that, for the most part,
people do a very good job in bringing only invalid articles to VfD
(i.e. the system works).
What types of articles get deleted on VfD? Vanity pages,
advertisements, original research, source material, medical advice,
memorials to deceased friends, stories that received a small article
on page 16 of their local newspaper years ago, political rants, game
guides, neologisms, hoaxes, etc. Anything that doesn't belong in an
encyclopedia. Standards. It's all about standards. This isn't about
evil deletionists wanting to methodically delete every article until
there is nothing left. It is about "is this a valid article or not?"
Some would argue "It doesn't hurt to leave non-encyclopedic junk
because no-one will look for it / wikipedia isn't paper / anyone
should be allowed to write anything they want." Forget standards,
let it devolve into a free-for-all so we can be proud of... what?
The examples I gave above are only some of the types of articles that
do not qualify for Speedy Deletion but obviously do not belong in an
encyclopedia. So we can either let admins delete on-sight anything
that doesn't belong (we don't need to go there) or else have a very
limited list of things that can be deleted on-sight and list other
questionables on a page to get community input. Hmm... that second
option sounds a lot like what we have now.
The system works. It isn't broken. It could use some tweaking,
sure. I'm open to constructive ideas to improve the system, as is
being discussed in another thread. To call VfD "broken," to say that
it isn't needed, to declare that all content is valid, to compare a
review process to a slum -- Well, I'll just bite my tongue.
Stephen W. Adair
SWAdair
