We deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_big-bust_models_and_performers due to sourcing issues. It was overturned at DRV without the sourcing issues ever being addressed. It was relisted and speedy kept. It still has sourcing issues.
What is "big"? Where is the external source that defines "big"? What sources are used to include the individuals concerned? No sources are cited. The lead of the article is original research and the contents is "phwooooar! look at the tits on that!"
It is always dispiriting when an article that reduces the average quality of the project is kept in this way...
Guy (JzG)
On 12/28/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
It is always dispiriting when an article that reduces the average quality of the project is kept in this way...
It was one of our top few most popular pages by page views.
Steve
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 21:35:10 +1100, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
It was one of our top few most popular pages by page views.
Largely due to being linked from many tens of porn bios.
Guy (JzG)
On 28/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 21:35:10 +1100, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
It was one of our top few most popular pages by page views.
Largely due to being linked from many tens of porn bios.
My theory was that the sheer number of names made it a very popular search result, and the inbound links made it a desirable target... but I dunno. (It's a pity we can't see where those readers were coming from or if they stayed around)
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:33:44 +0000, "Andrew Gray" shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
It's a pity we can't see where those readers were coming from or if they stayed around
I expect that when recess was over they went back to class...
Guy (JzG)
On 12/28/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
It is always dispiriting when an article that reduces the average quality of the project is kept in this way...
Popularity trumps policy, it seems. The flaw of DRV in both directions; things people want deleted get deleted regardless of worth, things people want kept get kept even if they should be gone.
On the other hand, there's crap on Wikipedia that far exceeds this.
-Matt
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
We deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_big-bust_models_and_performers due to sourcing issues. It was overturned at DRV without the sourcing issues ever being addressed. It was relisted and speedy kept. It still has sourcing issues.
Considering how many articles who's deletions are endorsed at DRV that obviously meet our standards, I'm having an awfully hard time shedding a tear over this one, especially when you and I both know that it can be sourced well with some effort.
-Jeff
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 08:29:30 -0500, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Considering how many articles who's deletions are endorsed at DRV that obviously meet our standards, I'm having an awfully hard time shedding a tear over this one, especially when you and I both know that it can be sourced well with some effort.
A pity the effort has been devoted instead to arguing for its retention despite its not meeting our standards, then. I await with baited breath the reliable external source for "big" in this context.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 08:29:30 -0500, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Considering how many articles who's deletions are endorsed at DRV that obviously meet our standards, I'm having an awfully hard time shedding a tear over this one, especially when you and I both know that it can be sourced well with some effort.
A pity the effort has been devoted instead to arguing for its retention despite its not meeting our standards, then. I await with baited breath the reliable external source for "big" in this context.
I do strongly suggest being militant about it. AnonEMouse knows a lot about the porn articles, he might have some input as to sourcing it.
-Jeff
On 12/28/06, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
A pity the effort has been devoted instead to arguing for its retention despite its not meeting our standards, then. I await with baited breath the reliable external source for "big" in this context.
I do strongly suggest being militant about it. AnonEMouse knows a lot about the porn articles, he might have some input as to sourcing it.
I'd guess a good plan to source such a list would be to find an authoritative source - e.g. a trade journal - listing publications that cater to this market. One could then define the list as being 'models who have appeared in publications classified as 'big bust' in Adult Industry Journal', or something like that. Of course, equivalents would have to be found in other worldwide markets, but I would imagine that similar things can be found elsewhere.
-Matt
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 04:35:44 -0800, "Matthew Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote:
I'd guess a good plan to source such a list would be to find an authoritative source - e.g. a trade journal - listing publications that cater to this market. One could then define the list as being 'models who have appeared in publications classified as 'big bust' in Adult Industry Journal', or something like that. Of course, equivalents would have to be found in other worldwide markets, but I would imagine that similar things can be found elsewhere.
That would be perfectly acceptable. What we had was a group of editors getting together to decide that these women had big tits, then, on being challenged, deciding on an arbitrary definition of big based on what they thought was big, and then using the invariably unreliable self-reported data from the women themselves to judge inclusion. That is problematic on many levels.
Guy (JzG)
Last I checked, DRV is NOT AFD part2, and should not be involved with content based decisions, just proceedural / consensus measuring ones.
xaosflux
----- Original Message ----- From: "Guy Chapman aka JzG" guy.chapman@spamcop.net To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 5:14 AM Subject: [WikiEN-l] OK, so DRV *is* broken
We deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_big-bust_models_and_performers due to sourcing issues. It was overturned at DRV without the sourcing issues ever being addressed. It was relisted and speedy kept. It still has sourcing issues.
<snip> Guy (JzG)
Well, actually, if you look at WP:UNDEL, the policy actually states that undeletions may be requested if you think Wikipedia would be better off with the article than without it, which seems quite content based to me. The page that is specified as the place to put undeletion requests for all of the listed reasons is WP:DRV, so I think that DRV is actually supposed to consider content-based reasons for undeletion.
Sincerely, Silas Snider
On 12/29/06, xaosflux xaosflux@gmail.com wrote:
Last I checked, DRV is NOT AFD part2, and should not be involved with content based decisions, just proceedural / consensus measuring ones.
xaosflux
----- Original Message ----- From: "Guy Chapman aka JzG" guy.chapman@spamcop.net To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 5:14 AM Subject: [WikiEN-l] OK, so DRV *is* broken
We deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_big-bust_models_and_performers due to sourcing issues. It was overturned at DRV without the sourcing issues ever being addressed. It was relisted and speedy kept. It still has sourcing issues.
<snip> Guy (JzG)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 29/12/06, xaosflux xaosflux@gmail.com wrote:
Last I checked, DRV is NOT AFD part2, and should not be involved with content based decisions, just proceedural / consensus measuring ones.
No, that's completely and insanely wrong. It is indeed supposed to review the decision and discussion and content and everything.
- d.
Ok, I retract that, was a little overstated. Although I've seen way to many items brought to DRV in the past just to have another go at them (generally in the case of xfd's ended in Keep).
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 5:52 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] OK, so DRV *is* broken
On 29/12/06, xaosflux xaosflux@gmail.com wrote:
Last I checked, DRV is NOT AFD part2, and should not be involved with content based decisions, just proceedural / consensus measuring ones.
No, that's completely and insanely wrong. It is indeed supposed to review the decision and discussion and content and everything.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 30/12/06, xaosflux xaosflux@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, I retract that, was a little overstated. Although I've seen way to many items brought to DRV in the past just to have another go at them (generally in the case of xfd's ended in Keep).
Yeah. The trouble with DRV is it has regulars, who end up forming a virtual committee. Committees often fail to scale with editors and articles. The overworked regulars (who are bothering with this because they care) see lots of stupid and get understandably terse with it. They then tweak process to make the process page easier for themselves - formalised systems, local jargon and so forth. This unintentionally excludes outsiders from the pages. Many express open suspicion of outsiders, who are perceived as not knowing how the process works. Regulars lose sight of the big picture and begin to conflate the process with the project and will defend the process at the expense of arguable damage to the project.
I'm not sure of an easy approach to solving this.
- d.