On 14/07/07, Ben Yates <ben.louis.yates(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I don't want to delete them, but a lot of them get deleted. Like -- a
lot. If I go back through my blog archives and click on the "list of"
entries, a fair portion have already been deleted. And that sample
contains only those lists that I thought were awesome. It would be
nice if it was a convention to transwiki them rather than delete them
-- at least then there's the potential to still view them (and maybe
move them back someday if the political winds change).
Somewhat offtopic -- it would be cool if, in a few years, wikipedia
was the tip of a churning iceberg of content: which is to say, it
would nice if there was a multitiered system whereby very little gets
deleted outright, and most stuff gets moved elsewhere. This type of
system would fuel much greater public participation (decrease
friction, if you want to get overly abstract).
On 7/14/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
> > Ben Yates wrote:
> >> I like listcruft -- it's one of my favorite parts of wikipedia. Is
> >> there any way I can spearhead a project to transwiki these lists
> >> somwhere, instead of deleting them forever?
> > Why do you want to delete them? They are clearly an important part of
> > Wikipedia?
> > Ec
What Wikipedia sees as cruft is a great way for new wikias to expand. All
those red links are cool for dedicated one-goal editors to expand a wiki. I
honestly think that we shouldn't NN and cruft every article without finding
a place on wikia. If wikia expands perhaps the foundation will too.