On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 9:31 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 14 April 2013 14:29, David Gerard
On 14 April 2013 14:21, Anthony
> We have Wales to "thank" for the
absurd "Articles for Creation" process
> that still around? I haven't checked in
a long time.). Seems to me
> constitutes a "significant role in
debates over inclusion deletion".
Only by a stretch. I'd call it an argument
intervention. There is no such thing as rescue by magic, and berating
someone for failing to do the impossible strikes me as pointless.
Pretty much everything that's fucked up about Wikipedia is emergent
behaviour of people being a problem, and top-down magic can't possibly
scale to fix that. It can cripple it, though.
I'll also note that I suspect opening up article creation to anons
again will be impossible within the community - because they actually
wanted to lock it down even further, and the Foundation stepped in and
said "no, keep it open".
I don't see what the stretch is. Wales made it much more difficult for
Wikipedia neophytes to create new articles. That's pretty clearly relevant
to the inclusion/deletion debate.
As far as what is possible/impossible, I think you're largely correct. As
was suggested by Gwern, the "inclusionists" were largely driven out, and
the 2005/2006 time frame was probably the peak of that.
I'm certainly not suggesting that article creation be reopened to anons and
that this is going to solve anything. Actually I'm not suggesting anything
at all as far as what should be done. I make an occasional edit, usually
with a throwaway account or under an IP address, but I don't follow this
stuff that much any more.
I'm not even saying very much about whether or not the right choices were
made back in the 2003/2004/2005/2006 time-frame that I'm familiar with. I
do think "Articles for Creation" is absurd, though even that is more a
comment on the technology/interface than on the idea (if you want to make
new articles go through a review process, there are much better ways to
design the interface). But for the most part what caused me to comment was
to point out facts in the history which are relevant to others who wish to
make those evaluations.