On 7/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 13:38:49 -0700, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
That's a good one. One of the points of expedited cleanup should be : do we want the original contributor to return and edit again in the future? Will they be upset to find the article has moved or disappeared? How can we make them feel welcome in the community while critiquing and changing their work? which is one of the important aspects of review that gets lost in many AfD processes.
To your next post: agreed that this shouldn't be bureaucratic; just an implementation of polite interactions and good faith to improve and lend better context to deletion discussions.
Yes. And the message to the contributor should be: thank you for contributing, we hope you will help us fix this article and in the process find out more about how we write and how we measure the quality of articles.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
That would work for a lot of the good faith created crap. As David pointed out I sometimes just offer to fix an article, or create something related that more notable, when I suspect good faith on the part of the creator, and when it's a topic I can write about without much work. I really think it's easier to improve an article and requires less Wiki hours than an AfD. This would also get those nominating articles for deletion to actually look at the articles while they're up for review. It would stop annoying the hell out of those of us like CW and I who want to slap those idiots who put articles up for deletion who don't really think the article should be deleted. It could also bring some horrid articles up for attention. Overall it would be, imo, a better use of resources. (time resources)
(I've found that if there is a COI involved offering to improve the article backfires seriously--no one with a COI can see their own crap.)
KP