I've suggested that each individual WikiProject establish the notability standards, so naturally I guess they'd be involved in deletion, too. We already have Deletion Sorting, which is a blessing.
On 1/12/07, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/12/07, Christopher Thieme cdthieme@gmail.com wrote:
Message: 10 Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:19:31 -0500 From: "James Hare" messedrocker@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] (no subject) To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: <
43348cda0701120919k15954458g636078210a2adede@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I suggested something on another thread that stated that only people
with
background in a certain field should be qualified to judge notability. Chemists determine chemical notability, Finns determine notability of Finnish folk, the list goes on. Perhaps it's time to give AFD a good
ol'
reworking to separate the opinions of people who are qualified to
speak
about the subject's notability and outsider's opinions (both are
important,
but we can't put the fingers of clueless people on the red button). Hopefully, through this, closing AFDs will be based less on vote
counting
and more on evaluating the opinions of people.
I'd have to agree with James on this one. This could also be a boon for
FA
and GA promotions. It would diminish the tendancy for voting at AFD,
FAC,
etc. to look like a division of "i don't like it" and the "i like it"
camps.
Several months ago, an AFD came up for "Amafanius", an early Roman
Epicurean
philosopher whose works, while unfortunately lost to the ages, were discussed at length in the works of Cicero (who trashed Amafanius with glee), and in Michel de Montaigne. Because of their referencing, the philosophical offerings of Amafanius can actually be
reconstructed...but
only in broad strokes. As someone who studied classics at Rutgers and
am
well-versed in this area, I recognized that he was notable and should
have a
place here at Wikipedia. Thankfully, because a few others were just as well-versed, we were able to save the article.
But, unfortunately, as it typical around here, a large number of users
who
obvious appeared to be the tech-saavy, internet-raised Pokemon-crowd for whom nothing exists before, say, 20 years ago, voted for "Delete".
One of the failings, one that probably contributes to some of the
negative
reputation Wikipedia has earned, is that it does not have any expert oversight. Perhaps some sort of prominent, scholarly, editorial
advisory
board would be in order? Even if loosely bureaucratic, it would add a little more weight to the credibility of the encyclopedia that would be
a
worthwhile step in counteracting an image diminished by our pop-culture heaviness (pokemon, star trek, etc.) and "anyone can edit (read: vandalise/insert false information)" repuation.
Regards, Christopher D. Thieme User:ExplorerCDT
I suppose now might be a decent time to trot out an old idea: what about giving WikiProjects a greater role in the deletion process? They are already (for the most part) the natural gathering places for people with some interest in a particular topic (and, by association, some degree of knowledge of it); presumably, we could therefore expect that the consensus of participants in a WikiProject would thus be a little more informed on topics within that project's scope than the consensus of randomly selected editors.
-- Kirill Lokshin
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l