On 25/01/07, David Monniaux David.Monniaux@free.fr wrote:
In any case, I think the Foundation should issue a clear statement that admins, especially from OTRS, can CSD:A7 school articles that do not demonstrate notability. Otherwise it's not manageable.
The purpose of Wikipedia is not to make OTRS happy, any more than it is to make Articles For Deletion happy.
- d.
cc'd to wikien-l - it's not entirely clear why you left the wiki you're actually talking about out of the loop here.
David Gerard wrote:
On 25/01/07, David Monniaux David.Monniaux@free.fr wrote:
In any case, I think the Foundation should issue a clear statement that admins, especially from OTRS, can CSD:A7 school articles that do not demonstrate notability. Otherwise it's not manageable.
The purpose of Wikipedia is not to make OTRS happy, any more than it is to make Articles For Deletion happy.
A7's being abused enough already, thanks.
-Jeff
On 1/25/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The purpose of Wikipedia is not to make OTRS happy, any more than it is to make Articles For Deletion happy.
Every article on Wikipedia has a maintenance cost and a benefit to the project as a whole. It's reasonable for us to choose not to keep articles whose maintenance cost is greater than the benefit they provide.
Steve
On 1/25/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/25/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The purpose of Wikipedia is not to make OTRS happy, any more than it is to make Articles For Deletion happy.
Every article on Wikipedia has a maintenance cost and a benefit to the project as a whole. It's reasonable for us to choose not to keep articles whose maintenance cost is greater than the benefit they provide.
Everyone is free to not contribute to the maintenance of some section of WP.
One lone editor willing to babysit a thousand articles nobody else cares about is sufficient maintenance committment.
What we don't have is any way to currently know if there is someone who cares about an article and is paying attention to it. (Feature request? Beyond watchlist, add a new "Maintenance Watchlist" and make that visible from the article side or some such?)
On 1/25/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/25/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/25/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The purpose of Wikipedia is not to make OTRS happy, any more than it is to make Articles For Deletion happy.
Every article on Wikipedia has a maintenance cost and a benefit to the project as a whole. It's reasonable for us to choose not to keep articles whose maintenance cost is greater than the benefit they provide.
Everyone is free to not contribute to the maintenance of some section of WP.
One lone editor willing to babysit a thousand articles nobody else cares about is sufficient maintenance committment.
What we don't have is any way to currently know if there is someone who cares about an article and is paying attention to it. (Feature request? Beyond watchlist, add a new "Maintenance Watchlist" and make that visible from the article side or some such?)
Some people had (have?) public watchlists - a page that lists articles they are watching, which others can also watch by clicking on [related changes]. That would serve this purpose.
--
-george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 25/01/07, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
Some people had (have?) public watchlists - a page that lists articles they are watching, which others can also watch by clicking on [related changes].
It would be nice to have a switch to make one's watchlist public if so desired. Or is that too "social software"-esque?
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 1/25/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The purpose of Wikipedia is not to make OTRS happy, any more than it is to make Articles For Deletion happy.
Every article on Wikipedia has a maintenance cost and a benefit to the project as a whole. It's reasonable for us to choose not to keep articles whose maintenance cost is greater than the benefit they provide.
Underlaying that would be the completely spurious notion that there is a way of measuring this relationship.
Ec
In any case, I think the Foundation should issue a clear statement that admins, especially from OTRS, can CSD:A7 school articles that do not demonstrate notability. Otherwise it's not manageable.
The purpose of CSD is to delete articles where there is already established consensus to delete. There is definitely not an already established consensus to delete school articles on nobility grounds - there are plenty of people who feel "X is a school" is an assertion of notability.
And as for the foundation dictating such a policy, I think you misunderstand what the foundation exists for...