I'd like to propose a simple approach to dealing with article subjects of questionable notability, which may represent a solution to many of the conflicts surrounding such articles. I apologize if this has been debated before; if so, please point me to the relevant thread(s)/page(s).
Our policy is simple: We demand reliable evidence for the notability of a subject. While the scope of such evidence will certainly continue to evolve, the principle is not negotiable.
We delete articles that fail to establish notability. Deletion hides revisions from everyone but admins, a very small percentage of our user base. Importantly, it even hides them from the authors of the article.
As an alternative to hard deletion, I propose that we redirect a set of articles, to be defined below, to a page "Wikipedia:Removed article (notability)" or sth. similar. This page would explain our basic notability principles, the procedure for adding sources, and how to go back to the original article and retrieve an older version from the history to edit.
By using a redirect, we prevent such pages from being counted as articles. We also force anyone trying to look at the article to read the notice we put on the page -- which could be much more effective than user talk messages. We also make the process of restoring the previous version somewhat non-obvious, which should reduce the number of instant reverts. The redirects should be liberally semi-protected if they do become a problem, which still allows for open history review, debate, and editing by regular users.
The set of articles that would be treated this way would _exclude_: - vanity articles (gushing style, created by the subject, utterly obvious non-notability ..) - anything that is not following the established encyclopedic format - anything that is remotely problematic in content (legal risks, ethics)
The set would, however, include the typical non-notable computer program, webcomic, journalist etc. Many of these articles are fairly detailed when they get deleted, and in my opinion, soft deletion would be a real alternative to allow people to continue to review the content.
== Advantages ==
* Reduces AfD workload and admin burn-out; involves more people in deletion * Allows open review and discussion of soft-deleted articles * Engages people who are "hit" by deletion rather than putting them in AfD hell * Encourages actual improvement when such improvement seems possible, but inclusion is not yet justifiable * Makes it easier to systematically track re-creation of non-notable articles * Avoids the process wonkery of undeletion when notability can be established and reduces the risk of the risk of duplicated effort (nn article deleted=>someone else re-creates, now with more sources, but as a non-admin they do not have access to the original text)
== Possible problems ==
* Could be used where it is not appropriate.
Response: By redirecting to a page which gives a _specific_ policy reason -- Wikipedia:Removed article (notability) -- we would implicitly whitelist the cases where soft deletion can be used. If the risk of it growing out of hand is nevertheless perceived too great, we could limit it to a specific test category at first, e.g. web comics.
* People can still link to non-notable material by linking to old revisions.
Response: This is already possible -- any revision from any article can be linked to, regardless of the content it contains. The only exception are revisions deleted for legal reasons. It hasn't been much of an issue so far, and I doubt it will become one. If it does, we can make the "old revision" notice at the top more prominent.
* Could lead to constant edit warring over non-notable topics.
Edit warring is usually quickly dealt with, and reverting redirects without cause could be considered a bad faith act even without an actual edit war taking place. In practice, it is unlikely to be a very different problem from the re-creation of articles once they have been deleted.
* Red links become blue.
If the subject is not notable, why is it linked to in the first place? :-)
Thoughts?
Who would decide what to redirect and what to unredirect? Admins? What stops non-admins from doing it? I like the idea, but I think it would be very difficult to manage.
Unfortunately, articles like that are usually reposted instead of reverted, so making reverting non-obvious won't help. Also, with the amount of non-notable coming in, this method could result in a lot of clutter. An empty page already says something that was previously there could have been deleted and goes on to point a reader in the right direction. So we're basically telling them already.
In my experience shoving rules in people's faces won't help. They will continue to ignore them. Take for example [[WP:AFC]]: Despite the wizard, non-notable entries and spam are still posted and despite the notice at the top of the page [[WP:HD]] and similar desks still get inappropriate questions that belong elsewhere.
I think we should work more on pointing people to relevant rules before they post their first article.
Mgm
On 2/28/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
In my experience shoving rules in people's faces won't help. They will continue to ignore them.
...
I think we should work more on pointing people to relevant rules before they post their first article.
Which one is it?
I agree with your first statement, but under the soft deletion system, policy violations would be managed like they always are. A user reverting a soft del redirect without cause is no different from a user reposting deleted material without cause. The difference is that anyone can help with the deletion part, unbalancing the current asymmetry (anyone can post a non-notable bio, only the small number of users who are admins can remove it).
On 2/28/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Who would decide what to redirect and what to unredirect? Admins? What stops non-admins from doing it? I like the idea, but I think it would be very difficult to manage.
Start with an open system (but limited to notability) & let it evolve -- some "soft deletes" should probably go through AfD, just like some merge & redirects should, while others could be done immediately after the article appears.
Start with an open system (but limited to notability) & let it evolve -- some "soft deletes" should probably go through AfD, just like some merge & redirects should, while others could be done immediately after the article appears.
I predict lots of edit wars as the people "deleting" the article will have no authority. Reposting deleted material without a good reason at the moment is clearly wrong, as it was deleted by an admin (who are considered trustworthy). If it can be deleted by anyone (including people who have no reason beyond AGF to be considered trustworthy), it will be like any other edit - ie. anyone can revert it (upto 3RR). With reposting at the moment, the default is to assume the admin was right, and that works quite well. With this idea, the default being to assume the random person that decided to soft delete it is right seems unfounded.
To summarise: If anyone can delete, we can't justifiably stop anyone from undeleting.
Counter argument: This is similar to the "PROD will never work because the article creator will always remove the PROD tag" argument, which has proven to be wrong, so perhaps this argument will also prove to be wrong and people will respect the soft deletions. I'm not sure the benefit over speedy deletions is significant, though...
On 2/28/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
To summarise: If anyone can delete, we can't justifiably stop anyone from undeleting.
If anyone can edit, we can't justifiably stop anyone from vandalizing articles? ;-)
Remember, we still have admins. We can semi-protect the redirects, block revert warriors, and so on, if it becomes a problem.
If the policy on notability is clear -- which it should be -- then there shouldn't be much edit warring. If it isn't clear, then obviously people will start to wiki-lawyer that article so-and-so meets the policy. But that is going to happen one way or another.
On 28/02/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
If the policy on notability is clear -- which it should be -- then there shouldn't be much edit warring. If it isn't clear, then obviously people will start to wiki-lawyer that article so-and-so meets the policy. But that is going to happen one way or another.
See, that's the problem. It isn't clear. The notability guidelines tend to arbitrary numerical cutoffs for the sake of having arbitrary numerical cutoffs, rather than because doing so clearly follows from NPOV, NOR and verifiability. "Notability" doesn't in fact follow from any of these. Having "notability" rules is itself controversial.
- d.
If anyone can edit, we can't justifiably stop anyone from vandalizing articles? ;-)
Vandalism is, by definition, done in bad faith. We can justify stopping bad faith acts. Reverting a soft deletion by someone with no more authority than yourself is not necessarily a bad faith act.
On 2/28/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Vandalism is, by definition, done in bad faith. We can justify stopping bad faith acts. Reverting a soft deletion by someone with no more authority than yourself is not necessarily a bad faith act.
Not necessarily, indeed -- in the cases where it is not, debate ensues and consensus builds. Just like any other edit.
On 28/02/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'd like to propose a simple approach to dealing with article subjects of questionable notability, which may represent a solution to many of the conflicts surrounding such articles. I apologize if this has been debated before; if so, please point me to the relevant thread(s)/page(s).
Our policy is simple: We demand reliable evidence for the notability of a subject. While the scope of such evidence will certainly continue to evolve, the principle is not negotiable.
We delete articles that fail to establish notability. Deletion hides revisions from everyone but admins, a very small percentage of our user base. Importantly, it even hides them from the authors of the article.
I've always been particularly uncomfortable with using "notability" as a justification for deletion. It's such a flimsy, changeable notion: an editor declares an article "non-notable" if they have either not heard of it, or have little interested in the subject. When you take a Wikipedia with largely English-speaking editors based in the US and Europe, notability ends up skewing our coverage. For example, a relatively obscure cable network show airing in the US will be "notable" to his group of people, but wouldn't be notable to a group of Chinese-speaking editors from the PRC. It doesn't really seem to matter if the article is of potential interest to a particular culture or that it will be of interest to future readers. It also doesn't seem to matter that disk space is cheap and that it would be better to side with caution and keep the article rather than dump it.
Since Wikipedia is a global, multilingual project we should set our threshold for notability low. A subject that generally isn't notable to editors in our main demographics should still get an article. I'm not sure how we should prevent notability having too much influence in the future.
Your solution makes for a good compromise (and perhaps makes "notability" workable). It honours the notion enough to remove article status from some subjects which may not deserve an article, but not enough to get rid of articles which are of potential interest to some.
"I haven't heard about it" or "I don't like it" are bad arguments and have nothing to do with notability. Notability is not hard and fast, but not as flimsy as you make it out to be. We have have plenty of notability criteria around and someone should be able to show why an article doesn't meet any of those before they have any chance of successfully deleting or nominating something.
Mgm
On 2/28/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
I've always been particularly uncomfortable with using "notability" as a justification for deletion. It's such a flimsy, changeable notion: an editor declares an article "non-notable" if they have either not heard of it, or have little interested in the subject. When you take a Wikipedia with largely English-speaking editors based in the US and Europe, notability ends up skewing our coverage. For example, a relatively obscure cable network show airing in the US will be "notable" to his group of people, but wouldn't be notable to a group of Chinese-speaking editors from the PRC. It doesn't really seem to matter if the article is of potential interest to a particular culture or that it will be of interest to future readers. It also doesn't seem to matter that disk space is cheap and that it would be better to side with caution and keep the article rather than dump it.
Since Wikipedia is a global, multilingual project we should set our threshold for notability low. A subject that generally isn't notable to editors in our main demographics should still get an article. I'm not sure how we should prevent notability having too much influence in the future.
Your solution makes for a good compromise (and perhaps makes "notability" workable). It honours the notion enough to remove article status from some subjects which may not deserve an article, but not enough to get rid of articles which are of potential interest to some.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@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 28/02/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
"I haven't heard about it" or "I don't like it" are bad arguments and have nothing to do with notability. Notability is not hard and fast, but not as flimsy as you make it out to be.
In AFD usage it appears to be.
We have have plenty of notability criteria around and someone should be able to show why an article doesn't meet any of those before they have any chance of successfully deleting or nominating something.
There is no qualification for nominating something.
And I thought someone just claimed notability was reasons for instant-keep, not reasons to delete.
- d.
David Gerard schreef:
On 28/02/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
"I haven't heard about it" or "I don't like it" are bad arguments and have nothing to do with notability. Notability is not hard and fast, but not as flimsy as you make it out to be.
In AFD usage it appears to be.
The claim that "I haven't heard about it" is common usage on AfD has been put forward on this list twice in the last two months; the two previous times, I checked the current AfD nominations, and this argument was used (by the nominator) in 0 of about 250 nominations.
I'd like to see an example; bonus points if the article shouldn't have been deleted anyway; double bonus points if the article was deleted anyway.
(I haven't checked AfD this time, so there is a possibility you could prove me wrong here.)
Eugene
On 2/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
And I thought someone just claimed notability was reasons for instant-keep, not reasons to delete.
That was me - and I was stating the way I thought things SHOULD be, not the way they are currently applied.
-Matt
For me, I would just state that the current proposal as enunciated by Erik appears on the face of it an endorsement of open season on articles. I don't like the idea one bit.
I am not sure if Erik remembers the intricate shenanigans used to try to erase all knowledge of Catholic Priests Pedophilia from wikipedia (or at the very least attempting to orphan the article with the details). In any case my personal position is that although we should emphasize improving what we have, over adding more minutiae, we should also emphasize *keeping* what we have, over erasing it, when what we have is of value.
On 3/1/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
And I thought someone just claimed notability was reasons for instant-keep, not reasons to delete.
That was me - and I was stating the way I thought things SHOULD be, not the way they are currently applied.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l