On 9/14/05, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
Geoff,
I realise that voters of Articles for Deletion need to sensitive to peoples opinions when voting. Having said this, I would object rather strongly if an admin closed a vote in Articles for Deletion on the grounds that a voter referred to the subject as not being notable.
After all, one of the reasons for Speedy Deletion is that an article has not established notability of the subject. As well, the main reason for keeping an article is the belief that a user might find information on the subject useful. In other words, the topic of the article is notable within a certain field of study.
As for cruft, I never use the word myself as one man's cruft is another man's interest. Having said this, I don't think an admin should close a vote on such a trivial ground and I would support it being relisted as soon as possible.
I think that we will always need an Articles of Deletion process and I think that this system works as well as any could. It should aim to encourage as much participation as possible so should be open to all users.
Regards
Keith User Name: Capitalistroadster
On 9/15/05, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, JAY JG wrote:
From: Snowspinner Snowspinner@gmail.com
On Sep 14, 2005, at 12:09 PM, Phroziac wrote:
On 9/14/05, Snowspinner Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I would rather have an encyclopedia that has a truly staggering amount of information but that some people dismiss because it has some silly articles than a well-respected but heavily incomplete encyclopedia. If I wanted that, I'd just go to Britannica.
Isn't that exactly why we exist?
I always thought so.
We exist to create a great encyclopedia. I don't see how an encyclopedia
filled with, as you put it, "silly articles", can ever be considered "great".
I agree with Jay here (& I hope that doesn't surprise him too much ;).
Consider Wikipedia is a form of publication: currently we have the lowest threshold I can imagine for acceptance of any publication. All you have to do is submit an article that contains information that is somehow useful. (Please ignore any need to define "useful" for the moment.)
By establishing a threshold, we end up rejecting material -- for good or bad reasons -- which will inevitably result in hurt feelings. (That is why in the publishing world rejection slips are so impersonal.) Hurt feelings -- & the fact a certain percentage of submissions are simply dreadful, unusable or submitted as a joke -- result in the "toxic atmosphere" of the deletion process.
And we can't rely on only a "Speedy Delete" process: there will always be cases that fall into the grey area, if for no other reason than the need for a second opinion. And, as Tony Sideway pointed out above, some items are incorrectly placed into CSD -- for whatever reason.
The only solution to this is to COMPLETELY ABOLISH this threshold: either we have one or we don't have one. However, if we have no threshold, then we have to deal with unuseful articles full of gibberish, unfixable POV rants, hoaxes, & biographical entries that contain nothing more than a date of birth, details of education, & details of personality. Perhaps because we can somehow hide them in Wikipedia, we can argue that they aren't a problem -- but left unchecked, these unuseful articles will accumulate & grow into a problem.
Although I believe we need a threshold for Wikipedia, we also should acknowledge that in most cases an article was submitted with the best of intentions: since we are knifing someone's baby, there is no need to express glee while doing so. It appears to me that there is a consensus that the words "cruft" & "notable" should not be used in AfD: would anyone object if I edit the opening page & explain that use of either of these words will result with the nomination being immediately closed as a Speedy Keep?
Geoff
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Geoff, Keith.
Sometimes there's people that can word something a lot better than others. In this case I heartily agree with both your last posts. I couldn't have said it better myself.
--Mgm