Andrew Lih wrote:
I'm all for reevaluating how VfD works, but I'd like to oppose the name "Editorial Review."
Not only does it sound Nupedia-ish, but I have a strange image of a salon with leather chairs, Ivy League professors smoking cigars and sipping cognac while deciding the fate of articles from commonfolk. The name "votes for deletion" makes the barrier high, meaning an article stays unless you put yourself on the record for endorsing a destructive act.
This may come as a surprise to those who've found me a "deletionist", but I think adopting the "Editorial Review" moniker makes Wikipedia less wiki-like. It makes Wikipedia sound really stuffy and formal, which it really is NOT.
I share at least some of Andrew's concerns about the choice of name, though perhaps not so much that I would say "Votes for deletion" is necessarily better than "Editorial review". But at a minimum, we would need to do something that doesn't confuse the process with "Peer review", which we already have a page for, and which is very different from the deletion process.
I also agree with RickK, in that I think most of the problems can be addressed by improving the atmosphere, through renaming the page and/or providing better instructions on what the process is for. If this is done, I think the existing process can handle the issues just fine. For example, I definitely disagree with the suggestion that all new pages should be sent into a special editorial review process; they get that already with the wiki system and recent changes. Whatever we call it, VfD is for special cases that need something beyond that.
--Michael Snow
One related suggestion might be to put the "delete" tab back for everyone. However, instead of it actually deleting the page, it goes to a simple page that kindly describes how deletion works in Wikipedia and provides the templates necessary to do so. That way, it explains the deletion process to more people.
Right now the following two pages are long and intimidating: * [[Wikipedia:Deletion_policy]] * [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]] We need a short simple description of how deletion works in less than 200 words. Something like:
"Articles are not deleted immediately on Wikipedia, but instead are voted upon by the community. The main page for this is [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]] where they exist for comment for one week, after which administrators act on the result of the vote."
The page could show the step-by-step process by doing the following: * Display "{{vfd}}" for easy copy pasting into the article * Generate the wiki-syntax template found in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Votes_for_deletion#VfD_footer already formatted for adding to the VfD page. * List a "red link" to the appropriate Votes_for_deletion subpage, for the article in question.
Of course, the delete tab would still work as usual for admins, allowing direct deletion of the page, in addition to creating the template above.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 21:29:28 -0700, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Andrew Lih wrote:
I'm all for reevaluating how VfD works, but I'd like to oppose the name "Editorial Review."
Not only does it sound Nupedia-ish, but I have a strange image of a salon with leather chairs, Ivy League professors smoking cigars and sipping cognac while deciding the fate of articles from commonfolk. The name "votes for deletion" makes the barrier high, meaning an article stays unless you put yourself on the record for endorsing a destructive act.
This may come as a surprise to those who've found me a "deletionist", but I think adopting the "Editorial Review" moniker makes Wikipedia less wiki-like. It makes Wikipedia sound really stuffy and formal, which it really is NOT.
I share at least some of Andrew's concerns about the choice of name, though perhaps not so much that I would say "Votes for deletion" is necessarily better than "Editorial review". But at a minimum, we would need to do something that doesn't confuse the process with "Peer review", which we already have a page for, and which is very different from the deletion process.
I also agree with RickK, in that I think most of the problems can be addressed by improving the atmosphere, through renaming the page and/or providing better instructions on what the process is for. If this is done, I think the existing process can handle the issues just fine. For example, I definitely disagree with the suggestion that all new pages should be sent into a special editorial review process; they get that already with the wiki system and recent changes. Whatever we call it, VfD is for special cases that need something beyond that.
--Michael Snow
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l