--- geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/22/05, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
This debate strikes me as being one, at its core,
about eventualism
versus immediatism. Tony is arguing that the
encyclopedia will clean
itself up eventually, and that if in doubt, it's
better to leave
possible CSDs alone. Sam and geni are arguing from
an immediatist
perspective, that if it can't be cleaned up
immediately and is of no
encyclopedic value *as it is now*, then it's best
junked.
Oh nothing that simple. Eventualism gives two ways to analyise the situation: Leveing rubish doesn't matter becuase it will improve Deleting rubish doesn't matter becuase there will be plently more along in five minutes.
Thus eventualism doesn't ultimately support either side.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
But eventualism does support a tag and bag system...during high volume periods, if garbage gets through, the vast majority of it will end up in orphan or lonelypage special pages. Now, there's a large backlog there but they are filtered in that way and can be examined, they are not lost in the vastness of Wikipedia. (if I understand those special pages correctly)
I see invalid speedy deletions everytime I look, valid content is lost, good new users are confused, annoyed and in some cases lost. If we're not going to honor speedy criteria then why even have them? Garbage content hurts us as does losing valid content...but we have control over deleting garbage...once good content is lost, for the most part it's just gone, we don't know when or if we'll ever get it back...
I think there's a way to make tag and bag work if we want to, keeping encyclodpedic content is what we're supposed to be doing...anyway, sorry for the rant....