It frosts me when people on EITHER side make short, curt, dismissive comments in AfD that consist simply of a vote and a _generic_ remark, like "Delete, nn website," or "Delete, [whatever]cruft," or "Keep, all [whatever] are inherently notable," or "KEEP! Of course. Why would anyone want to delete this?"
It's lazy, it's polarizing, and it tends to push AfD in the direction of being a vote (bad) rather than consensus-building discussion (good).
(Equally bad are appeals to _fictitious_ precedents or vague assertions that imply that concensus has been reached in areas where they have not).
People unwilling to take a few minutes to look seriously at an article and make a real, open-minded assessment of _that particular article,_ have nothing useful to contribute to the discussion and should refrain from posting.
To cast votes based on one's like or dislike for _a particular topic area_ is unhelpful.
And the accumulation of initialisms and jargon doesn't help either. For gosh sakes... if someone can't spare the 3.5 seconds it takes to type out the word "non-notable" in full, I have to question whether they've got enough time to do a thoughtful assessment of the article.
Personally, I comment in about one in five of the AfD discussions that I read through. If I were a better person than I am, it would be more like one in twenty. If I don't have something to say that is useful in forming a group opinion, I don't say it. (Well... actually... you know... I often do, anyway. But I SHOULDN'T).
On 9/15/05, dpbsmith@verizon.net dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
It frosts me when people on EITHER side make short, curt, dismissive comments in AfD that consist simply of a vote and a _generic_ remark, like "Delete, nn website," or "Delete, [whatever]cruft," or "Keep, all [whatever] are inherently notable," or "KEEP! Of course. Why would anyone want to delete this?"
It's lazy, it's polarizing, and it tends to push AfD in the direction of being a vote (bad) rather than consensus-building discussion (good).
Count the number of articles that go up to AFD every day, and ask yourself if you think its reasonable that everyone write a paragraph - or even a short explanation - on everything they vote for. Simply *voting* on everything would take an hour a day at least. Demanding a detailed explanation from every vote would only reduce the amount of communication because people would stop voting. If you want to fix that, you either expand the CSD, so stuff that doesn't need deliberation won't waste everyone's time, or you implement pure wiki deletion, so this whole problem goes away entirely. Right now, if band and business vanity, link spam, personal essays, and neologisms were all covered by CSD (which they aren't), you could cut the amount of articles going up to AFD by up to 1/3. - Ryan
Ryan Delaney wrote:
On 9/15/05, dpbsmith@verizon.net dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
It frosts me when people on EITHER side make short, curt, dismissive comments in AfD that consist simply of a vote and a _generic_ remark, like "Delete, nn website," or "Delete, [whatever]cruft," or "Keep, all [whatever] are inherently notable," or "KEEP! Of course. Why would anyone want to delete this?"
It's lazy, it's polarizing, and it tends to push AfD in the direction of being a vote (bad) rather than consensus-building discussion (good).
Count the number of articles that go up to AFD every day, and ask yourself if you think its reasonable that everyone write a paragraph
- or even a short explanation - on everything they vote for. Simply
*voting* on everything would take an hour a day at least.
I think I tried that once :) Something far more productive IMO is voting for Featured Picture Candidates (easy on the eyes, doesn't get you into flamewars - the only downside is that it burns bandwidth like coke in a furnace).
Demanding a detailed explanation from every vote would only reduce the amount of communication because people would stop voting.
Oh, and typing a paragraph for everything you vote on will give you RSI.
If you want to fix that, you either expand the CSD, so stuff that doesn't need deliberation won't waste everyone's time,
That puts the power squarely in the hands of a select few whom many already mistrust. People in positions of authority must be beyond reproach in the actions that they take. Acting on consensus helps to ensure that.
or you implement pure wiki deletion, so this whole problem goes away entirely.
And you get a whole /other/ set of problems.
Right now, if band and business vanity, link spam, personal essays, and neologisms were all covered by CSD (which they aren't), you could cut the amount of articles going up to AFD by up to 1/3.
Link spam is already covered by CSD. Band vanity is covered by [[WP:MUSIC]]. Business vanity mostly turns out to be spam. Neologisms are unverifiable and violate [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:NOT]], as do personal essays. Quite a few other things which go to AfD end up being transwikied as appropriate or turn out to be copyvios.
There's nothing inherently wrong with the way that AfD works. It's just that a lot of people have the wrong attitude to it - they see it as some kind of competition. If you don't know what I'm talking about, see [[meta:AIW]], [[meta:ADW]], and [[WP:EAD]].
On 9/15/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Link spam is already covered by CSD.
It's only covered if the article is nothing but a link. Add some content, and the article has to go to AFD.
Band vanity is covered by
[[WP:MUSIC]]. Business vanity mostly turns out to be spam. Neologisms are unverifiable and violate [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:NOT]], as do personal essays. Quite a few other things which go to AfD end up being transwikied as appropriate or turn out to be copyvios.
None of that is a speedy. It all goes to AFD and it all wastes everyone's time. There are certainly provisions for which those articles can be deleted, but none of them can be speedy deleted. Period. - Ryan
On 15/09/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Count the number of articles that go up to AFD every day, and ask yourself if you think its reasonable that everyone write a paragraph
- or even a short explanation - on everything they vote for. Simply
*voting* on everything would take an hour a day at least.
This is one reason why I see AfD as broken: it's very hard to actually get a sensible reasoned debate going. One of the advantages of PWDS is that there is no time limit to reaching consensus on talk pages - plenty of time for a good-quality discussion. Those articles that are really do deserve deletion will probably recieve no more attention after they've gone, unlike where an article on AfD will sometimes get 20+ votes, all "delete" (why do people bother?).
BTW we could still easily list pages which were being debated for deletion - just have a template with a category in it, and a central DynamicPageList. Anything blanked without that template being added to the talk page would be reverted as vandalism.
Dan
Those articles that are really do deserve deletion will probably recieve no more attention after they've gone, unlike where an article on AfD will sometimes get 20+ votes, all "delete" (why do people bother?).
And how exactly are you going to determine there's consensus to delete articles that deserve deletion if you don't get 20+ delete votes?
On 9/15/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
And how exactly are you going to determine there's consensus to delete articles that deserve deletion if you don't get 20+ delete votes?
By getting four or five. With unanimity, that's plenty.
Sam
On 9/15/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/15/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
And how exactly are you going to determine there's consensus to delete articles that deserve deletion if you don't get 20+ delete votes?
By getting four or five. With unanimity, that's plenty.
Sam
Yeah, it is. But how are you going to get comments if people see a blanked article and think "Good riddance"?
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Yeah, it is. But how are you going to get comments if people see a blanked article and think "Good riddance"?
The same way you "get comments" now. If there is a disagreement, you initiate a discussion and link to that discussion. Only instead of AfD, the discussion would be on the talk page. How's that any different from the way it's now?
On 9/16/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Yeah, it is. But how are you going to get comments if people see a blanked article and think "Good riddance"?
The same way you "get comments" now. If there is a disagreement, you initiate a discussion and link to that discussion. Only instead of AfD, the discussion would be on the talk page. How's that any different from the way it's now?
Since AFD is centralized the discussions are easily accesible to everyone. Fragmenting them across talk pages makes central management of archived discussions and admins actually doing the final deletion or keep.
Dan Grey wrote:
On 15/09/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Count the number of articles that go up to AFD every day, and ask yourself if you think its reasonable that everyone write a paragraph
- or even a short explanation - on everything they vote for. Simply
*voting* on everything would take an hour a day at least.
Just to be clear, Ryan Delaney wrote that, not me.
On 9/16/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Dan Grey wrote:
On 15/09/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Count the number of articles that go up to AFD every day, and ask yourself if you think its reasonable that everyone write a paragraph
- or even a short explanation - on everything they vote for. Simply
*voting* on everything would take an hour a day at least.
Just to be clear, Ryan Delaney wrote that, not me.
I meant to respond to Ryan on this. As a AfD closer, I do expect all participants in the debate to spend a few minutes, or whatever it takes, reading the article, and then read the other comments in the debate, and have a bit of a poke around the subject, possibly look at the article history. If they're not doing at least the first two of those, they're not making an informed comment. If I see them write a few words in the context of the debate, I'm happier that there has been an informed discussion.
This evening I was privileged to spend two hours closing a discussion on the proposed deletion of a minor book on a controversial subject. About fifty people participated, so it took me a long time to perform my customary backfground checks on the contributors. Debate was good-natured, given the inflammatory subject matter, and the sense of serious engagement I got from that debate made it a pleasure.
Had everybody just typed "keep/delete" there would have been two effects: one or two people who originally voted redirect would not have changed their votes to delete and redirect; three people would not have been convinced by points and facts raised in the discussion and changed their vote from keep to delete.
In short, it would not have been a *debate*.
I could have closed it in half the time (especially since there would have been fewer radical edits towards the end by people who thought the discussion was getting out of hand). But it would not have been right.
On 9/15/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
I meant to respond to Ryan on this. As a AfD closer, I do expect all participants in the debate to spend a few minutes, or whatever it takes, reading the article, and then read the other comments in the debate, and have a bit of a poke around the subject, possibly look at the article history. If they're not doing at least the first two of those, they're not making an informed comment. If I see them write a few words in the context of the debate, I'm happier that there has been an informed discussion.
I don't think it's your business to decide what is and isn't an "informed decision". The person casting the vote thought their decision was informed enough or they wouldn't be voting. If you think someone isn't well informed, you inform them. You don't just discard their votes without comment.
- Ryan
Tony's alluding to issue of simple gaming of the system. Its something we dont generally think is a big problem, but there are certain cases in VFD/AFD which seem out of balance with our prime directives. The Lost_Liberty_Hotel article, for example was a total piece of dog shit from the beginning, and should still be deleted --and thats coming from someone rather sympathetic those concerned by the issues raised by the Kelo case descision.
While perhaps a bit out of sync with our existing concepts, we need oversight committees for a number of areas --blocks, deletion, editorial policy, and others. In contentious cases, or cases which flounder in a lack of consensus, the committee could make certain descisions about articles, and follow some established process. The distinction between a committee and project of course would be that members are officers, with some degree of review and trust in their membership.
This is simply a natural extension of the existing core government, and a natural growth of the core to deal with the larger size. Some innovations have rested on the work of developers (many major ones set to be implemented), while others will require some action for installing new social processes. (I had thought the board would be a bit more hands on, but I understand the distinction between foundation and wiki). It might even be wise to start a committee that deals with committee oversight. The last major change in wiki-local government was when Jimbo formed the Arbcom and Medcom. We shouldnt have to bug Jimbo to decree a new committee if there is consensus for it--a tabulated vote process could be used for major issues, and anything produced would simply be an outgrowth of consensus. How new voting sessions are instituted would need some definition as well, but that seems straigtforward (and sufficiently ceremonial) enough for the founder to handle.
SV
--- Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/15/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
I meant to respond to Ryan on this. As a AfD
closer, I do expect all
participants in the debate to spend a few minutes,
or whatever it takes,
reading the article, and then read the other
comments in the debate, and
have a bit of a poke around the subject, possibly
look at the article
history. If they're not doing at least the first
two of those, they're not
making an informed comment. If I see them write a
few words in the context
of the debate, I'm happier that there has been an
informed discussion.
I don't think it's your business to decide what is and isn't an "informed decision". The person casting the vote thought their decision was informed enough or they wouldn't be voting. If you think someone isn't well informed, you inform them. You don't just discard their votes without comment.
- Ryan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
On 9/16/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/15/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
I meant to respond to Ryan on this. As a AfD closer, I do expect all participants in the debate to spend a few minutes, or whatever it takes, reading the article, and then read the other comments in the debate, and have a bit of a poke around the subject, possibly look at the article history. If they're not doing at least the first two of those, they're not making an informed comment. If I see them write a few words in the context of the debate, I'm happier that there has been an informed discussion.
I don't think it's your business to decide what is and isn't an "informed decision". The person casting the vote thought their decision was informed enough or they wouldn't be voting. If you think someone isn't well informed, you inform them. You don't just discard their votes without comment.
- Ryan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
No one said anything about the votes being discarded. He merely informed us he checks whether people are being mindless sheep in their voting, which in my opinion is a good thing. When people say "All X deserve an article", they obviously didn't read the article. They'd be basing their vote of the subject rather than the article itself.
On 9/16/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
No one said anything about the votes being discarded. He merely informed us he checks whether people are being mindless sheep in their voting, which in my opinion is a good thing. When people say "All X deserve an article", they obviously didn't read the article. They'd be basing their vote of the subject rather than the article itself.
I have frequently stated "all schools are notable" in VfD/AfD, and used that as my vote. However, every single school AfD vote I've ever placed was preceeded by reading the article, a brief google search, and a visit to the school's official home page, if it had one.
Claiming to know "they obviously didn't read the article" is a failure to assume good faith, and in fact is frequently wrong, considering I've used phrases just like the one you claim is an indicator that I didn't read the article.
Because all schools are notable, I find them interesting enough to read each of their articles and check their home pages when I run across them. Reading articles I find inherently notable... hmm... what a concept. I would suggest that you accept that other Wikipedia editors have different interests than you and leave it at that.
On 9/16/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/15/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
I meant to respond to Ryan on this. As a AfD closer, I do expect all participants in the debate to spend a few minutes, or whatever it takes, reading the article, and then read the other comments in the debate, and
have a bit of a poke around the subject, possibly look at the article history. If they're not doing at least the first two of those, they're not making an informed comment. If I see them write a few words in the context of the debate, I'm happier that there has been an informed discussion.
I don't think it's your business to decide what is and isn't an "informed decision". The person casting the vote thought their decision was informed enough or they wouldn't be voting. If you think someone isn't well informed, you inform them. You don't just discard their votes without comment.
I cannot discard a stated good faith opinion, even if I am not sure it was well informed. But I would certainly be justified in giving it less weight than an opinion that clearly showed serious thought, in determining whether consensus had been reached.
And if an AfD result were to be challenged I would be inclined to present such sheep voting as evidence on behalf of the appellant's case for a review. An Afd closer has to climb right inside the debate, to wear it like a piece of clothing. We're not mere clerks tallying votes. The debate I closed last night--at the request of someone who found the task too daunting--was exemplary. I don't often see that level of engagement. Afd participants cannot just run down the list of debates ticking keep/delete according to their prejudices, and then expect their opinions to be given equal weight with those who consider the question seriously.
"Ryan Delaney" ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote in message news:eecbb0630509152024421173d4@mail.gmail.com... On 9/15/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
... If I see them write a few words in the context of the debate, I'm happier that there has been an informed discussion.
I don't think it's your business to decide what is and isn't an "informed decision". The person casting the vote thought their decision was informed enough or they wouldn't be voting. If you think someone isn't well informed, you inform them. You don't just discard their votes without comment.
I wonder if you might be taking [[assume good faith]] a little too far. In several cases I have observed, voters use the phrase "non-notable" as a synonym for "I haven't heard of that". Given the vast depths of my own ignorance, I would be surprised if I had heard of more than a very few of the people and things described on Wikipedia before reading the relevant article. If an article says that the subject is a "notable" member of their profession (or whatever) I tend to think this means that someone who actually knows the field would recognise the name, rather than that "Joe on the Street" ought to.
You don't just discard their votes without comment.
From whence do you gain the impression that Tony "discards" those votes? My
take on his comment was that he felt more satisfaction closing a discussion which appeared more "informed", rather than having his conclusion affected.
ISRTBC HTH HAND
On 9/16/05, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
"Ryan Delaney" ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote in message news:eecbb0630509152024421173d4@mail.gmail.com...
You don't just discard their votes without comment.
From whence do you gain the impression that Tony "discards" those votes?
My take on his comment was that he felt more satisfaction closing a discussion which appeared more "informed", rather than having his conclusion affected.
This was my original meaning. However I take issue with the apparent implication that an Afd closer must give equal weight to all expressions of opinion.
I generally take such expressions into account where the numbers seem to be close to my personal comfort zones on consensus/no consensus, but in the extreme case one edit that says "delete, this is a hoax documented at X" or "keep, this fellow was President of Venezuela from 1976-1980, as documented at Y, and I have edited the article to include this referenced fact" outweighs any number of "delete, non-notable Miami beach bum" votes.
On 9/16/05, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
ISRTBC HTH HAND
ISRTBC?
WTF?
I've been away from Usenet too long, and don't like or use IRC or IM.
Michael Turley wrote:
On 9/16/05, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
ISRTBC HTH HAND
ISRTBC? WTF?
In sanktam regem tenet benedictus claudandus? No, seriously, I have no idea. I wish people would stop using such acronyms at all. I notice that Wikipedia articles are often full of them. Somewhere in the middle of an article the non-American reader is suddenly expected to know what the ACLU is (often much more obscure ones, this is just one that came to mind). It's really frustrating, especially when there is also no article, redirect or disambiguation page under that acronym.
Searching for ISRTBC, Google asks if I may have meant "ISRC", while dictionary.com suggests "ASARABACCA"...
Timwi
Timwi wrote:
Michael Turley wrote:
On 9/16/05, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
ISRTBC HTH HAND
ISRTBC? WTF?
In sanktam regem tenet benedictus claudandus? No, seriously, I have no idea. I wish people would stop using such acronyms at all. I notice that Wikipedia articles are often full of them. Somewhere in the middle of an article the non-American reader is suddenly expected to know what the ACLU is (often much more obscure ones, this is just one that came to mind). It's really frustrating, especially when there is also no article, redirect or disambiguation page under that acronym.
Searching for ISRTBC, Google asks if I may have meant "ISRC", while dictionary.com suggests "ASARABACCA"...
I got one meaningful result for ISRTBC, and it's by Phil Boswell on [[Wikipedia talk:MediaWiki namespace text/Archive 1]]. I'm seriously starting to wonder if this is some secret shorthand for "YHBT YHL" or similar.
On 9/16/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Timwi wrote:
Michael Turley wrote:
On 9/16/05, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
ISRTBC HTH HAND
ISRTBC? WTF?
In sanktam regem tenet benedictus claudandus? No, seriously, I have no idea. I wish people would stop using such acronyms at all. I notice that Wikipedia articles are often full of them. Somewhere in the middle of an article the non-American reader is suddenly expected to know what the ACLU is (often much more obscure ones, this is just one that came to mind). It's really frustrating, especially when there is also no article, redirect or disambiguation page under that acronym.
Searching for ISRTBC, Google asks if I may have meant "ISRC", while dictionary.com suggests "ASARABACCA"...
I got one meaningful result for ISRTBC, and it's by Phil Boswell on [[Wikipedia talk:MediaWiki namespace text/Archive 1]]. I'm seriously starting to wonder if this is some secret shorthand for "YHBT YHL" or similar.
Secret shorthand for secret shorthand? Are you sure TINC?
"Michael Turley" michael.turley@gmail.com wrote in message news:d148b68705091605485dc7e2e6@mail.gmail.com... On 9/16/05, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
ISRTBC HTH HAND
ISRTBC? WTF? I've been away from Usenet too long, and don't like or use IRC or IM.
I sit (or stand, depending on the configuration of your system) ready to be corrected.
Sorry, I don't recall how that one started; I think it derived from ISC (i.e. I stand corrected) but don't trust my memory (I don't :-).
Oh, and FWIW my Cabal (TINC) mug didn't arrive; who was supposed to be mailing it to me again?
Ask Katefan0 if you can use her cabal toaster?
On 9/16/05, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, and FWIW my Cabal (TINC) mug didn't arrive; who was supposed to be mailing it to me again?
On 9/15/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Ryan Delaney wrote:
Right now, if band and business vanity...
...Business vanity mostly turns out to be spam...
Please excuse all the cutting, but this is a personal irritant that I find very hard to ignore. Vanity doesn't apply to businesses. Businesses are either important, influential, recognizable or otherwise worthy of writing an article about them, or they aren't.
Michael Turley wrote:
On 9/15/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Ryan Delaney wrote:
Right now, if band and business vanity...
...Business vanity mostly turns out to be spam...
Please excuse all the cutting, but this is a personal irritant that I find very hard to ignore. Vanity doesn't apply to businesses. Businesses are either important, influential, recognizable or otherwise worthy of writing an article about them, or they aren't.
In which case they will violate [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:NOT]] a business directory.
On 9/15/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Michael Turley wrote:
On 9/15/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Ryan Delaney wrote:
Right now, if band and business vanity...
...Business vanity mostly turns out to be spam...
Please excuse all the cutting, but this is a personal irritant that I find very hard to ignore. Vanity doesn't apply to businesses. Businesses are either important, influential, recognizable or otherwise worthy of writing an article about them, or they aren't.
In which case they will violate [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:NOT]] a business directory.
Sure, while you're making that blanket statement without considering each case individually, try nominating [[Wal-Mart]] to AfD and see what happens. (No, don't.) Businesses are, generally speaking, excellent subjects for articles because of the multiple sources of verifiable NPOV information about them. I'd find a better example of one that started out even smaller, as a meager little stub, but the server isn't responding right now.
Michael Turley wrote:
On 9/15/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
<snip discussion about business link spam>
In which case they will violate [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:NOT]] a business directory.
Sure, while you're making that blanket statement without considering each case individually, try nominating [[Wal-Mart]] to AfD and see what happens. (No, don't.) Businesses are, generally speaking, excellent subjects for articles because of the multiple sources of verifiable NPOV information about them. I'd find a better example of one that started out even smaller, as a meager little stub, but the server isn't responding right now.
[[Wal-Mart]] has references, so it's not original research, and in this case the article does more than say "Wal-Mart sells anything you want, in over 20 billion stores nationwide".
Ryan Delaney wrote:
Count the number of articles that go up to AFD every day, and ask yourself if you think its reasonable that everyone write a paragraph - or even a short explanation - on everything they vote for. Simply *voting* on everything would take an hour a day at least. Demanding a detailed explanation from every vote would only reduce the amount of communication because people would stop voting. If you want to fix that, you either expand the CSD, so stuff that doesn't need deliberation won't waste everyone's time, or you implement pure wiki deletion, so this whole problem goes away entirely. Right now, if band and business vanity, link spam, personal essays, and neologisms were all covered by CSD (which they aren't), you could cut the amount of articles going up to AFD by up to 1/3.
Redirects are fun, easy, and boost your edit count!
On 15/09/05, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to fix that, you either expand the CSD, so stuff that doesn't need deliberation won't waste everyone's time, or you implement pure wiki deletion, so this whole problem goes away entirely. Right now, if band and business vanity, link spam, personal essays, and neologisms were all covered by CSD (which they aren't), you could cut the amount of articles going up to AFD by up to 1/3.
Redirects are fun, easy, and boost your edit count!
Indeed. Wikiwax is your friend here...
G'day Ryan,
On 9/15/05, dpbsmith@verizon.net dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
It frosts me when people on EITHER side make short, curt, dismissive comments in AfD that consist simply of a vote and a _generic_ remark, like "Delete, nn website," or "Delete, [whatever]cruft," or "Keep, all [whatever] are inherently notable," or "KEEP! Of course. Why would anyone want to delete this?"
<snip />
Count the number of articles that go up to AFD every day, and ask yourself if you think its reasonable that everyone write a paragraph
- or even a short explanation - on everything they vote for. Simply
*voting* on everything would take an hour a day at least. Demanding a detailed explanation from every vote would only reduce the amount of communication because people would stop voting. If you want to fix
Not necessarily. My voting pattern is (largely) thus: I come across something stupid (via RC patrol, doing the "random page shuffle", or just browsing), add it to AfD. While I'm there I check out some of the other stuff nominated on that day, and vote accordingly (usually, but not always, to delete). It doesn't take that much time.
To refuse to take time to explain yourself --- and do the minimum of research required to do so credibly --- is to make a stupid vote. I've voted (or even nominated), only to have someone point out some crucial fact that I've misunderstood, and had to change my vote ... if I'd done the appropriate research (or understood the appropriate policy) better, then I wouldn't have wasted anyone's time like that.
If you don't have the time to make an informed contribution to an AfD discussion, you probably shouldn't be recording your opinion on that discussion. The risk of being incorrect (and having others cite you for their vote!), regardless of whether you want to keep or delete, is too great. Better, instead, to vote selectively --- only choose particular days (as I do), or those subjects you know something about, or whatever.
that, you either expand the CSD, so stuff that doesn't need deliberation won't waste everyone's time, or you implement pure wiki deletion, so this whole problem goes away entirely. Right now, if
But a bunch of new problems crop up.
band and business vanity, link spam, personal essays, and neologisms were all covered by CSD (which they aren't), you could cut the amount of articles going up to AFD by up to 1/3.
I'd say you could cut it by a lot more than that. Plus, we'd suddenly find out how many Rabid Deletionists(TM) were in fact Everyday Rational Editors(TM) who happened to be voting to delete Extremely Stupid Articles Which Are No Longer Handled By AfD Thank Goodness(TM).