--- wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org wrote:
Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to wikien-l@Wikipedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at wikien-l-owner@Wikipedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of WikiEN-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Re: VfD is broken (Tim Starling)
- Re: Re: Re: VfD is broken (Chris Wood)
- Re: Re: Re: VfD is broken (Chris Wood)
- Re: Re: Re:VfD is broken (Matt Brown)
- Re: Re: Re:VfD is broken (Chris Wood)
- Re: VfD is broken (Chris Wood)
- Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 14, Issue 14 (Denni)
- Re: Please stop Danny from harassing me (J.F. de
Wolff) 9. Announcing Wikibookclub (daniwo59@aol.com) 10. Re: Re: Re: Re: VfD is broken (Rick) 11. Re: Re: Re: Re: VfD is broken (Rick)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 12:09:11 +1000 From: Tim Starling ts4294967296@hotmail.com Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: VfD is broken To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Message-ID: chggs8$rkp$1@sea.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Chris Wood wrote in full:
Deletionism is a problem because it is against current
Wikipedia policies.
[...and some other similar posts]
Chris, how about rolling those 6 posts up into one in the future, and quoting the text that you're replying to. This is a mailing list, not IM.
-- Tim Starling
Message: 2 Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 14:05:51 +1200 From: "Chris Wood" standsongrace@hotmail.com Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Re: VfD is broken To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Message-ID: chggsa$s0g$1@sea.gmane.org
Stubs yes, but their notability and/or verifiability is
another. What
will people think of how trustworthy our information is
if we permit
rubbish such as a biased advertisement for a discussion
forum to
languish on Wikipedia?
But what do you mean by notability? Your humble opinion? Have a look at the proposed policy on what "notability" means at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Importance.
Message: 3 Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 14:05:56 +1200 From: "Chris Wood" standsongrace@hotmail.com Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Re: VfD is broken To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Message-ID: chggse$s0g$2@sea.gmane.org
Unfortunately, the things which CAN be quickly deleted
are very limited. Right now, there is a huge number of pages written by a troll named [[El Coronado]] which are obvious fiction, but they are not allowed to be speedy deleted, because obviously false information is not an acceptable condition (by some) for speedy deletion. Instead, we have to go through the cumbersome VfD process to get rid of them. If obviously false information was an accpetable criterion, then we could have gotten rid of all of this user's creations already, and we wouldn't have several different entries on VfD for them.
If there were no VfD, what would be the inclusionists'
acceptable process for getting rid of this false information?
I don't think any "inclusionists" have argued to get rid of VfD. We're just saying it isn't working like it was originally designed to. I don't have an alternative process, just a recommendation that people actually follow policy on which articles should be listed on VfD - this is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Importance
It took a great deal of work and research by several
people actively involved in the VfD process to make this into a useable article. Would those of you objecting to VfD actually have preferred that it have remained as it was in its original state?
I am an active participant in [[Cleanup]]. But there
are hundreds of articles listed there that never get worked on. By putting a 5-day deadline on them on the VfD page, we get some very reasonable articles, which then get kept. VfD is NOT just a "deletionist" playground, it's a serious effort by many people to make decent articles, or to figure out what to do with articles that aren't decent.
We are saying "improve the article, don't delete it , if the article is important (Wikipedia:Importance) enough". VfD is not about improvement, it's about deletion. Cleanup is about improvement. Yes, there are some articles (less than hundreds) which are never worked on. Yet surely that is better than the hundreds which are deleted, not because they don't belong in Wikipedia, but because they aren't good enough?
Message: 4 Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 19:10:58 -0700 From: Matt Brown morven@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re:VfD is broken To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Message-ID: 42f90dc0040905191057474d1c@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 13:50:43 +1200, Chris Wood standsongrace@hotmail.com wrote:
Deletionism is a problem because it is against current
Wikipedia policies.
Both extremes - extreme deletionism, and extreme inclusionism - are against current Wikipedia policies.
-Matt (User:Morven)
Message: 5 Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 14:16:37 +1200 From: "Chris Wood" standsongrace@hotmail.com Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Re:VfD is broken To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Message-ID: chgham$t1v$1@sea.gmane.org
Deletionism is a problem because it is against
current Wikipedia policies.
Both extremes - extreme deletionism, and extreme
inclusionism - are
against current Wikipedia policies.
-Matt (User:Morven)
=== message truncated ===
===== I�m astounded by people who want to "know" the universe when it�s hard enough to find your way around Chinatown. - Woody Allen
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush