I'm not trying to sink it, if I wanted to try and do that I'd nominate it
for deletion. This is a discussion list, so I vetted my opinion of the
project. But me thinking it's a crap inclusionist's wet dream isnt a reason
to actually scrap it. that's just my personal gripe.
And the point I was making wasn't that it's bad to encourage participation
in AFDs, but that this is canvassing for AFD work that begins with the
presupposition that the whole system needs double checking and that
deletions as unencyclopedic are more often than not flawed. It thumbs its
nose at the validity of the results of the regular AFD process by saying we
need to build a task force to go about sweeping up. While this might be in
order if there really was big problems with a certain type of deletion going
on, I simply don't agree. I have faith in the usefulness and veracity of the
AFD process as it stands, without any outside interference or lobbying.
On 7/13/07, John Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/14/07, Steven Walling
"Unfortunately this is not always the case.
AfD nominators are not
perfect and are sometimes operating at least partly in ignorance about
the subject of the article."
So in other words, in urgin people to check every AFD, the project
good faith and poor judgement, intelligence (or
both) on the part of all
nominators. that's even better.
Imagine asking people to check an AFD!! Every prod and AFD is a
direct statement of bad faith: all effort put into the article to date
has been wasted, and the contributors were crazy for starting the
article. It is hardly a novel concept that some people assume that
the nominator is completely wrong until proven right. The default at
AFD is keep, in theory.
This is merely a stab in the dark based on my experience, but I think
that only a third of Afd nominations are clearly correct, and they are
usually closed within a day or two; many of these articles could have
fallen under prod or CSD. A third of the nominations are about topics
that are inappropriate or borderline, and serious thought is required
by Afd participants. The rest of the nominations are unnecessary; the
article topic and content are both clearly appropriate and could be
rescued or merged into another article if only someone would assume
good faith and try to build on what the contributors had been trying
to achieve with the article. But that takes time. Rescuing one
article could take one person an entire week, including trips to the
library or even learning a little of a foreign language in order to
verify some disputed facts.
On 7/14/07, Steven Walling <steven.walling(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Th other thing that I notice about this project
is that they neglect to
notice that completely unencyclopedic or original research topics are
chock-full of good writing and cobbled together
citations. It's not
even primarily, poorly written articles needing
improvement that are
nominated as unencyclopedic. automatically going about and improving
articles under consideration for deletion as unencyclopedic assumes that
only nominators possess poor judegement, but that
the community at large
so stupid as to not be able to recognize when a
small or poorly written
article is worthy of encyclopedic treatment. The project's motto might
well be "Let's help the morons with no
As far as I can tell, the projects motto is more like "Lets put in a
concerted effort where other people have demonstrated over a long
period that they prefer to vote delete rather than spend four hours
working on an article that is probably going to be deleted anyhow."
Pretty noble intention if you ask me. The project has done nothing
wrong so far; why try to sink it while it is still in the shipyard?
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: