On 29/09/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/09/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/09/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
We'll see if the S-curve in article creation (as noted by Andrew Lih) really does top off at about 2.5-3 million. Or if there's some systemic deletionism going overboard that can be corrected.
I'd be interested to see these notes... do we have a link?
http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/07/10/unwanted-new-articles-in-wikipedia/ http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/09/10/two-million-english-wikipedia-artic... Precis: the deletionists are going way fucking overboard, and he has the numbers and quotes to demonstrate it.
In an effort to hold back the tide of goldfarming speedy-tagging, I've been going to these page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=500&target=Templat... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=500&target=Templat...
and removing clearly bogus speedy tags, and leaving a commenter on the tagger's page something like:
==Clearly erroneous A7==
The speedy criteria are hard and don't stretch - please take more care with these. (This is becoming a matter of [http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/09/10/two-million-english-wikipedia-artic... public] [http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/07/10/unwanted-new-articles-in-wikipedia/ concern] and PR problems, so a few people are looking at all CSDs and particularly A7s lately.) Thanks! - ~~~~
I doubt it will kick over a hornet's nest, but others are heartily invited to join in.
ps: about 1/3 were bogus, the other 2/3 thoroughly deserved to die and I shot several of them myself.
pps: best not to say "I was an admin on Wikipedia when your mum still wouldn't let you use the computer unsupervised", even if it is true. May be undiplomatic and less than persuasive.
- d.