Carbonite wrote:
On 12/8/05, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/8/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Carbonite wrote:
On 12/8/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
By the way, I really hope the experiment of switching off anon page creation is followed up with an experiment in switching off AFD for a month.
Isn't that a bit like experimenting with not taking out your trash for
a
month? They're both fairly unpleasant experiences that no one really
wants
to do, but they can't be halted without some other way of getting rid
of the
refuse.
If the volunteer garbagemen are driving people out of the town as hard as they can, it would probably be less damaging to the community and be a REALLY GOOD incentive to come up with something less socially toxic. See evidence in current RFAr.
Right. And "trash" is more akin to speedy deletes, which is altogether different. AfD candidates are rarely hurting anyone; just out of place or against one or another content policy.
Looking at the huge number of articles on AfD that are unanimously deleted, I'm not sure how else to describe them other than "trash". These articles may not be as bad as speedy deletes (the decaying food that will cause a stench if not quickly removed), but that doesn't mean they should be kept. What we need is a process to efficiently remove articles that currently receive 100% support for deletion on AfD. If these articles no longer had to go through AfD, I think we probably could scrap the whole thing and send the volunteer garbagemen packing.
Carbonite
This might be a good time to plug my year-old proposal, [[Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion]] (the only one to have ever received support from a majority of Wikipedians). Of course I'm not saying we should put up for yet another vote. It might be a good idea to review it and cull some material for the ongoing process of deletion reform (that's as slow as ever, I might add). For the umpteenth time, AFD isn't scaling. It works, but it's not scaling. Plain and simple. We're already seeing almost 200 article debates in one day. If we're 10 times smaller than Google or MSN, what happens when we reach that size? 2000 debates in a day. We'll have to break it down by hour! This simply ain't gonna' scale, folks. We need to come up with something. It's alright to proceed slowly, but from what I can see, deletion reform is as slow and as stalled as it was a year ago when I mooted Preliminary Deletion.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])