On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote:
> 2008/12/3 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>:
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> 2008/12/2 Sigvat Kuekiatngam Stensholt <st09039(a)mi.uib.no>:
> >> > I am in one sense amused, in another sense astonished, that Ellen
> >> > Hambro, the leader of what is effectively the Norwegian Environmental
> >> > Protection Agency, up for AFD, and even more astonished to see some
> long
> >> > time contributors voting to delete it.
> >>
> >> Things get proposed for AFD all the time that shouldn't be deleted,
> >> that's why we have an AFD process and don't just let anyone delete
> >> anything they like. If it actually gets deleted, then it may be
> >> indicative of a problem, but just getting put up for AFD isn't a
> >> problem at all.
> >
> > Not *at all*? Doesn't it waste everyone's time?
>
> Well, it uses up people's time, but the alternative is things not
> getting deleted that should be, so I don't consider it a waste of
> time.
>
The alternative to proposing things for AFD all the time that shouldn't be
deleted is to not delete things that should be? I don't see how that
follows.
If a system of community prosecution was constantly putting innocent people
on trial, would that not be a problem at all? The alternative is to not
put criminals in jail, right?
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Charlotte Webb
<charlottethewebb(a)gmail.com>wrote:
> On 12/4/08, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Tagged, but not deleted? Sounds like the system is working, then.
>
> To the same extent that a non-fatal runway incursion indicates good
> traffic control (read: minimally).
>
Actually, it's less indicative of the system working, because the sample is
naturally skewed towards the articles which are not deleted. I suppose the
sample set includes articles which were deleted and then undeleted, although
I've even heard those referred to as evidence that the system is working.
