Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to
wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help'
to
wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
wikien-l-owner(a)Wikipedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is
more specific
than "Re: Contents of WikiEN-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: VfD is broken (Tim Starling)
2. Re: Re: Re: VfD is broken (Chris Wood)
3. Re: Re: Re: VfD is broken (Chris Wood)
4. Re: Re: Re:VfD is broken (Matt Brown)
5. Re: Re: Re:VfD is broken (Chris Wood)
6. Re: VfD is broken (Chris Wood)
7. Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 14, Issue 14 (Denni)
8. Re: Please stop Danny from harassing me (J.F. de
Wolff)
9. Announcing Wikibookclub (daniwo59(a)aol.com)
10. Re: Re: Re: Re: VfD is broken (Rick)
11. Re: Re: Re: Re: VfD is broken (Rick)
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 12:09:11 +1000
From: Tim Starling <ts4294967296(a)hotmail.com>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: VfD is broken
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Message-ID: <chggs8$rkp$1(a)sea.gmane.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Chris Wood wrote in full:
Deletionism is a problem because it is against
current
Wikipedia policies.
[...and some other similar posts]
Chris, how about rolling those 6 posts up into one in the
future, and
quoting the text that you're replying to. This is a
mailing list, not IM.
-- Tim Starling
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 14:05:51 +1200
From: "Chris Wood" <standsongrace(a)hotmail.com>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Re: VfD is broken
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Message-ID: <chggsa$s0g$1(a)sea.gmane.org>
Stubs yes, but their notability and/or
verifiability is
another. What
will people think of how trustworthy our
information is
if we permit
rubbish such as a biased advertisement for a
discussion
forum to
languish on Wikipedia?
But what do you mean by notability? Your humble opinion?
Have a look at the
proposed policy on what "notability" means at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Importance.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 14:05:56 +1200
From: "Chris Wood" <standsongrace(a)hotmail.com>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Re: VfD is broken
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Message-ID: <chggse$s0g$2(a)sea.gmane.org>
Unfortunately, the things which CAN be quickly
deleted
are very limited.
Right now, there is a huge number of pages written by a
troll named [[El
Coronado]] which are obvious fiction, but they are not
allowed to be speedy
deleted, because obviously false information is not an
acceptable condition
(by some) for speedy deletion. Instead, we have to go
through the
cumbersome VfD process to get rid of them. If obviously
false information
was an accpetable criterion, then we could have gotten
rid of all of this
user's creations already, and we wouldn't have several
different entries on
VfD for them.
If there were no VfD, what would be the inclusionists'
acceptable process
for getting rid of this false information?
I don't think any "inclusionists" have argued to get rid
of VfD. We're just
saying it isn't working like it was originally designed
to. I don't have an
alternative process, just a recommendation that people
actually follow
policy on which articles should be listed on VfD - this
is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Importance
It took a great deal of work and research by
several
people actively
involved in the VfD process to make this into a useable
article. Would
those of you objecting to VfD actually have preferred
that it have remained
as it was in its original state?
I am an active participant in [[Cleanup]]. But
there
are hundreds of
articles listed there that never get worked on. By
putting a 5-day deadline
on them on the VfD page, we get some very reasonable
articles, which then
get kept. VfD is NOT just a "deletionist" playground,
it's a serious effort
by many people to make decent articles, or to figure out
what to do with
articles that aren't decent.
We are saying "improve the article, don't delete it , if
the article is
important (Wikipedia:Importance) enough". VfD is not
about improvement, it's
about deletion. Cleanup is about improvement. Yes, there
are some articles
(less than hundreds) which are never worked on. Yet
surely that is better
than the hundreds which are deleted, not because they
don't belong in
Wikipedia, but because they aren't good enough?
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 19:10:58 -0700
From: Matt Brown <morven(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re:VfD is broken
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <42f90dc0040905191057474d1c(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 13:50:43 +1200, Chris Wood
<standsongrace(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
Deletionism is a problem because it is against
current
Wikipedia policies.
Both extremes - extreme deletionism, and extreme
inclusionism - are
against current Wikipedia policies.
-Matt (User:Morven)
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 14:16:37 +1200
From: "Chris Wood" <standsongrace(a)hotmail.com>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Re:VfD is broken
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Message-ID: <chgham$t1v$1(a)sea.gmane.org>
> Deletionism is a problem because it is
against
current Wikipedia
policies.
Both extremes - extreme deletionism, and extreme
inclusionism - are
against current Wikipedia policies.
-Matt (User:Morven)
=== message truncated ===
=====
I�m astounded by people who want to "know" the universe when it�s hard enough to
find your way around Chinatown. - Woody Allen
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.