I hope everyone is okay with the mass purging of "unimportant" articles in bulk quantities. Just wanted to point out the obvious. You can now return to whatever you were doing.
Oh and please go out of your way to completely disregard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Episodes_and...
He seems to be following the letter of the rules. I'd say he's ignoring the spirit--except that obviously some people think deletionism is in the spirit of the rules too. In fact, often the rules are made unclear so that different people can "agree" on them in the first place, which makes it hard to tell what the spirit of the rules ever was.
I certainly think this behavior *shouldn't* be allowed, but it's hard to see how not to allow it without changing the rules. The letter of the rules is badly broken: * The AFDs are discussed and approved outside the affected pages. Some people see this as a feature. (Mentioned in the amendment request preceding this) * Once the articles are removed, he benefits from status quo. It's a lot harder to contest an AFD after the fact. * Making large numbers of basically similar changes makes it hard to contest all the changes at once. * A merge is not officially a deletion. We really need to give up on these legal fictions.
(Variations on the first three happened for spoiler warnings too. This isn't coincidence.)
Though despite all this, the Barrett v. Rosenthal RFA further down the page is pretty scary all on its own.
I don't know. The use of AFDs to merely game the system can't be right. It isn't spelled out as a violation of policy but WP:GAME and WP:POINT were written for that purpose. I can delete each and every article on any topic of my choosing if I make something like 500 afd nominations.
It is still gaming the system though. I am not convinced AFDs were done in a fair environment. Votestacking and meatpuppetry needs to be investigated.
Thats not really true either as WP:DE exists for dealing with situations like this. This isn't the first time someone has tried to pull up a stunt like this.
Nothing is being merged though. Articles are converted to redirects. WP:MERGE was designed for situations where you have a few short articles that do not have the likelihood of growing. How ever like many policies and guidelines even help pages like WP:MERGE was edited controversially. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Merging_and_moving_pages&... That inclusion of FICT to the help page isn't even mentioned in the talk page. FICT itself doesn't have consensus behind it. WP:FICT was significantly altered by an elite minority to serve their needs.
The current deletion spree is not based on consensus. It started over the small fry low traffic articles and had been escalating ever since. It started with TV shows and then escalated to Video Games.
See, a problem people do not understand is that this is not about saving a few pokemon articles "you could care less about". It is more of a concept fork. What do we want wikipedia to be? I want that to be discussed. This concept fork has been covered in great detail even by the mass media. The dispute itself has gotten so notable that we have an article on it on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia
- White Cat
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
He seems to be following the letter of the rules. I'd say he's ignoring the spirit--except that obviously some people think deletionism is in the spirit of the rules too. In fact, often the rules are made unclear so that different people can "agree" on them in the first place, which makes it hard to tell what the spirit of the rules ever was.
I certainly think this behavior *shouldn't* be allowed, but it's hard to see how not to allow it without changing the rules. The letter of the rules is badly broken:
- The AFDs are discussed and approved outside the affected pages. Some
people see this as a feature. (Mentioned in the amendment request preceding this)
- Once the articles are removed, he benefits from status quo. It's a lot
harder to contest an AFD after the fact.
- Making large numbers of basically similar changes makes it hard to
contest all the changes at once.
- A merge is not officially a deletion. We really need to give up on these
legal fictions.
(Variations on the first three happened for spoiler warnings too. This isn't coincidence.)
Though despite all this, the Barrett v. Rosenthal RFA further down the page is pretty scary all on its own.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
For those wanting to know what this is about have a look at: [[Wikipedia:RFAR#Episodes and_characters 3]]
2009/1/5 White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com:
I hope everyone is okay with the mass purging of "unimportant" articles in bulk quantities. Just wanted to point out the obvious. You can now return to whatever you were doing.
http://ragesossscholar.blogspot.com/2009/01/will-stanton-usability-grant-sto...
The community is actually *declining*, to a hard core of those who would fail a Turing test.
The next trick is to stick around it longer than the usual 12-18 month contributor cycle and see what's left of the encyclopedia.
- d.
I already prepared the popcorn. Oi! Who deleted my popcorn?
Deletionists strike back! <<
- White Cat
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:46 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/5 White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com:
I hope everyone is okay with the mass purging of "unimportant" articles
in
bulk quantities. Just wanted to point out the obvious. You can now return
to
whatever you were doing.
http://ragesossscholar.blogspot.com/2009/01/will-stanton-usability-grant-sto...
The community is actually *declining*, to a hard core of those who would fail a Turing test.
The next trick is to stick around it longer than the usual 12-18 month contributor cycle and see what's left of the encyclopedia.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/1/5 White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com:
I already prepared the popcorn. Oi! Who deleted my popcorn?
Deletionists strike back! <<
- White Cat
User:TNN meets the "persistently violating copyrights;" requirements of WP:BLOCK. Mostly because from time to time they have actually moved content from one article from another (the rest of the time you can nail them for persistently lying in edit summaries). Given the format of the mediawiki software and the GFDL it is pretty much impossible to do such merges without violating copyright.
Well... You are welcome to file that. Unfortunately I am not an admin. And also once his block expires he'd stop calling them merges. I really don't think that would slow him down. He changed his tactic after his 6-month ban from fiction related articles expired.
- White Cat
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 1:48 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/5 White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com:
I already prepared the popcorn. Oi! Who deleted my popcorn?
Deletionists strike back! <<
- White Cat
User:TNN meets the "persistently violating copyrights;" requirements of WP:BLOCK. Mostly because from time to time they have actually moved content from one article from another (the rest of the time you can nail them for persistently lying in edit summaries). Given the format of the mediawiki software and the GFDL it is pretty much impossible to do such merges without violating copyright.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
http://ragesossscholar.blogspot.com/2009/01/will-stanton-usability-grant-sto.... html
"Wikipedia's occasionally expert-unfriendly culture that turns off those with the most to contribute."
"Wikipedia culture that gives little priority (or even respect) to activities focused on the community itself rather than the encyclopedia"
This sounds awfully familiar.
Marc Riddell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-01-03/Editing...
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:46 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/5 White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com:
I hope everyone is okay with the mass purging of "unimportant" articles
in
bulk quantities. Just wanted to point out the obvious. You can now return
to
whatever you were doing.
http://ragesossscholar.blogspot.com/2009/01/will-stanton-usability-grant-sto...
The community is actually *declining*, to a hard core of those who would fail a Turing test.
The next trick is to stick around it longer than the usual 12-18 month contributor cycle and see what's left of the encyclopedia.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Most_visited_articles
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:50 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.comwrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-01-03/Editing...
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:46 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/5 White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com:
I hope everyone is okay with the mass purging of "unimportant" articles
in
bulk quantities. Just wanted to point out the obvious. You can now
return to
whatever you were doing.
http://ragesossscholar.blogspot.com/2009/01/will-stanton-usability-grant-sto...
The community is actually *declining*, to a hard core of those who would fail a Turing test.
The next trick is to stick around it longer than the usual 12-18 month contributor cycle and see what's left of the encyclopedia.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/JustBugsMe/Wikipedia
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:05 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.comwrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Most_visited_articles
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:50 PM, White Cat < wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-01-03/Editing...
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:46 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/5 White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com:
I hope everyone is okay with the mass purging of "unimportant" articles
in
bulk quantities. Just wanted to point out the obvious. You can now
return to
whatever you were doing.
http://ragesossscholar.blogspot.com/2009/01/will-stanton-usability-grant-sto...
The community is actually *declining*, to a hard core of those who would fail a Turing test.
The next trick is to stick around it longer than the usual 12-18 month contributor cycle and see what's left of the encyclopedia.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What harms the public view of Wikipedia is not articles on minor subjects, or on matters i anyone will understand are of significance only to fans. What really harms the perceived quality of Wikipedia is promotional and inaccurate articles. almost everyone can realize that the content of a reference work may include things they do not themselves want--but they do expect it to be both honest and accurate.
We could decide either for or against the detailed coverage of popular culture, but what we cannot tolerate is the diversion of effort in dealing with this. There is of course an obvious solution, which is to silence everyone who does not agree with me, but that's not going to fly. What we need is some way of not just forming a compromise but having it persist--otherwise any solution will be back to the same point in a few months. Arb com apparently does not think it is capable of this, but I don't see how else it can be done--they should try a little more boldness. Since they'll be criticised whatever they choose to do or not to do, they might as well decide.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 4:21 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/JustBugsMe/Wikipedia
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:05 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.comwrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Most_visited_articles
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:50 PM, White Cat < wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-01-03/Editing...
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:46 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/5 White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com:
I hope everyone is okay with the mass purging of "unimportant" articles
in
bulk quantities. Just wanted to point out the obvious. You can now
return to
whatever you were doing.
http://ragesossscholar.blogspot.com/2009/01/will-stanton-usability-grant-sto...
The community is actually *declining*, to a hard core of those who would fail a Turing test.
The next trick is to stick around it longer than the usual 12-18 month contributor cycle and see what's left of the encyclopedia.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Indeed. I can sign under this. Wait... I have... :)
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:03 AM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
What harms the public view of Wikipedia is not articles on minor subjects, or on matters i anyone will understand are of significance only to fans. What really harms the perceived quality of Wikipedia is promotional and inaccurate articles. almost everyone can realize that the content of a reference work may include things they do not themselves want--but they do expect it to be both honest and accurate.
We could decide either for or against the detailed coverage of popular culture, but what we cannot tolerate is the diversion of effort in dealing with this. There is of course an obvious solution, which is to silence everyone who does not agree with me, but that's not going to fly. What we need is some way of not just forming a compromise but having it persist--otherwise any solution will be back to the same point in a few months. Arb com apparently does not think it is capable of this, but I don't see how else it can be done--they should try a little more boldness. Since they'll be criticised whatever they choose to do or not to do, they might as well decide.
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
- White Cat
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 5:03 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
What harms the public view of Wikipedia is not articles on minor subjects, or on matters i anyone will understand are of significance only to fans. What really harms the perceived quality of Wikipedia is promotional and inaccurate articles. almost everyone can realize that the content of a reference work may include things they do not themselves want--but they do expect it to be both honest and accurate.
We could decide either for or against the detailed coverage of popular culture, but what we cannot tolerate is the diversion of effort in dealing with this. There is of course an obvious solution, which is to silence everyone who does not agree with me, but that's not going to fly. What we need is some way of not just forming a compromise but having it persist--otherwise any solution will be back to the same point in a few months. Arb com apparently does not think it is capable of this, but I don't see how else it can be done--they should try a little more boldness. Since they'll be criticised whatever they choose to do or not to do, they might as well decide.
Arbcom isn't supposed to be there to make policy.
The diversion of effort dealing with this has been part of a long drawn out war over inclusionism or deletionism. Which has never settled to a consensus.
Your belief that we cannot tolerate the diversion of effort is common, but also *extremely* dangerous... This is a community, the community is divided, has some fairly fundamental disagreements over what it wants to be, and the politics and dynamics and discussion over those fundamental disagreements are how we stay one community and avoid forking or driving away a large part of the community.
Part of the problem here is that we have two sets of idealists (purist exclusionists, who think that non-serious topics should not be considered, and purist inclusionists, who think that everything must be), who naturally talk past each other as they have fundamental goals disagreements, combined with two sets of realists (realist inclusionists who are deleting primarily over quality and RS issues, and realist inclusionists who favor the gradualist approach on article quality and prefer to work on article quantity for the time being) who are talking past each other when they could engage more productively.
Along with many in the middle who wish no part in duking it out.
Perhaps there is fruitful discussion to be had in getting the two realist camps to cooperate. There is nothing gained among either realist camp by denying that a number of the popular culture articles have been woefully badly sourced and unencyclopedic, or in denying that popular culture articles are popular and desired by a lot of article editors (and presumably readers, assuming that readership follows editorship interest trends).
Coming to a cooperative resolution of the "Delete vs Improve" problem would get us enough of the way there that setting both the purist camps on fire and hearing the lament of their women would become a credible and possibly legitimate way to solve the problem.
It is hard to cooperate when people are taking mass action and showing you the middle finger. They only seek a discussion when they are either cornered or when the presence of a discussion make them look "legit". I or anyone should not be living with a group of self righteous individuals or groups who interpret policy as they see fit. It is arbcoms role to stop such disruption. Only after that can there be fruitful discussions - when the disruption ceases. Either people mass removing content are being disruptive or people getting in the way. Cause you cannot have two conflicting consensus at the same time. That would be a lack of consensus! No mater how you look at it, there is no consensus on the matter which is a default keep not a default delete.
I think there is an ironic self conflicting nature of this issue. Presence of slur and misinformation on "important" articles has legal consequences. This is why we have a [[WP:BLP]] policy which was drafted as a continuation of policies like [[WP:V]], and [[WP:RS]]. In the case of "important" articles we need immediate action.
Policies like [[WP:BLP]] does not apply to "unimportant" articles because there are no urgent reasons to address various [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] issues. Someone is yet to explain me the irgency prompting mass deletion.
I guess it is a philosophical situation. What do you do to an article that isn't "perfect". Do you delete it or improve it? Or let someone else improve it.
-- White Cat
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:12 AM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 5:03 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
What harms the public view of Wikipedia is not articles on minor subjects, or on matters i anyone will understand are of significance only to fans. What really harms the perceived quality of Wikipedia is promotional and inaccurate articles. almost everyone can realize that the content of a reference work may include things they do not themselves want--but they do expect it to be both honest and accurate.
We could decide either for or against the detailed coverage of popular culture, but what we cannot tolerate is the diversion of effort in dealing with this. There is of course an obvious solution, which is to silence everyone who does not agree with me, but that's not going to fly. What we need is some way of not just forming a compromise but having it persist--otherwise any solution will be back to the same point in a few months. Arb com apparently does not think it is capable of this, but I don't see how else it can be done--they should try a little more boldness. Since they'll be criticised whatever they choose to do or not to do, they might as well decide.
Arbcom isn't supposed to be there to make policy.
The diversion of effort dealing with this has been part of a long drawn out war over inclusionism or deletionism. Which has never settled to a consensus.
Your belief that we cannot tolerate the diversion of effort is common, but also *extremely* dangerous... This is a community, the community is divided, has some fairly fundamental disagreements over what it wants to be, and the politics and dynamics and discussion over those fundamental disagreements are how we stay one community and avoid forking or driving away a large part of the community.
Part of the problem here is that we have two sets of idealists (purist exclusionists, who think that non-serious topics should not be considered, and purist inclusionists, who think that everything must be), who naturally talk past each other as they have fundamental goals disagreements, combined with two sets of realists (realist inclusionists who are deleting primarily over quality and RS issues, and realist inclusionists who favor the gradualist approach on article quality and prefer to work on article quantity for the time being) who are talking past each other when they could engage more productively.
Along with many in the middle who wish no part in duking it out.
Perhaps there is fruitful discussion to be had in getting the two realist camps to cooperate. There is nothing gained among either realist camp by denying that a number of the popular culture articles have been woefully badly sourced and unencyclopedic, or in denying that popular culture articles are popular and desired by a lot of article editors (and presumably readers, assuming that readership follows editorship interest trends).
Coming to a cooperative resolution of the "Delete vs Improve" problem would get us enough of the way there that setting both the purist camps on fire and hearing the lament of their women would become a credible and possibly legitimate way to solve the problem.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Am I over extending myself when I wish to see proof of consensus behind the mass removals?
- White Cat
2009/1/6 White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com
Am I over extending myself when I wish to see proof of consensus behind the mass removals?
There is no consensus, and there never will be, by definition almost: we'll never have "serious treatment of every group member's considered opinion". And I don't think this is something that can be solved by consensus anyway.
As David Goodman said: it's time for a firm policy. From on high: decide once and for all on the inclusionist/deletionist party line, and then stick to it.
The way things are now, it's much easier by far for radical deletionists to have their way than for any sort of inclusionist, for obvious reasons: a delete or delete-by-redirect is done in a fraction of the time it takes to write an article.
Everywhere you look, articles are being deleted, and it's not limited to Episodes & Characters of webcomics--just now I tried to look up [[Julie Powell]] (film starring Meryl Streep in production about her, reliable sources up the wazoo): article deleted for lack of notability.
How can you look at a spree like [[user:TTN]]'s and *not* feel bad? Add up the hours spent editing the articles he's deleting, the hours wasted trying to stop the deletion, the editors disgusted, discouraged and driven away...
The Economist was not exagerating, last year, when they called it a battle for the soul of Wikipedia. This situation is getting worse all the time.
And it's time someone put a stop to it.
Either say we're like a paper encyclopedia and we don't do popular culture, we discourage stubs, we insist on extremely broad notability and we think of ourselves a a kind of Encyclopedia Brittanica. Or say we're like the Wikipedia I started editing in 2002.
Michel Vuijlsteke
If you and I were the people involved, we could reach a compromise. Indeed, for about 90%of the people who care about the issue, we could reach a compromise. This leaves 2 ways of proceeding:
remove or silence the most difficult 1%. compel them to reach a compromise--which amounts to binding arbitration of policy
Arb com can of course do the first of these. That's a way which on other topics has not proven the least successful--there is always someone else to continue the position.
Or make policy. I know it pretends not to have that capability, but they've done it before. It may not have done it very well, but they've done it. As for what the community will accept, I predict it will accept what works, provided it does work.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 9:12 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 5:03 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
What harms the public view of Wikipedia is not articles on minor subjects, or on matters i anyone will understand are of significance only to fans. What really harms the perceived quality of Wikipedia is promotional and inaccurate articles. almost everyone can realize that the content of a reference work may include things they do not themselves want--but they do expect it to be both honest and accurate.
We could decide either for or against the detailed coverage of popular culture, but what we cannot tolerate is the diversion of effort in dealing with this. There is of course an obvious solution, which is to silence everyone who does not agree with me, but that's not going to fly. What we need is some way of not just forming a compromise but having it persist--otherwise any solution will be back to the same point in a few months. Arb com apparently does not think it is capable of this, but I don't see how else it can be done--they should try a little more boldness. Since they'll be criticised whatever they choose to do or not to do, they might as well decide.
Arbcom isn't supposed to be there to make policy.
The diversion of effort dealing with this has been part of a long drawn out war over inclusionism or deletionism. Which has never settled to a consensus.
Your belief that we cannot tolerate the diversion of effort is common, but also *extremely* dangerous... This is a community, the community is divided, has some fairly fundamental disagreements over what it wants to be, and the politics and dynamics and discussion over those fundamental disagreements are how we stay one community and avoid forking or driving away a large part of the community.
Part of the problem here is that we have two sets of idealists (purist exclusionists, who think that non-serious topics should not be considered, and purist inclusionists, who think that everything must be), who naturally talk past each other as they have fundamental goals disagreements, combined with two sets of realists (realist inclusionists who are deleting primarily over quality and RS issues, and realist inclusionists who favor the gradualist approach on article quality and prefer to work on article quantity for the time being) who are talking past each other when they could engage more productively.
Along with many in the middle who wish no part in duking it out.
Perhaps there is fruitful discussion to be had in getting the two realist camps to cooperate. There is nothing gained among either realist camp by denying that a number of the popular culture articles have been woefully badly sourced and unencyclopedic, or in denying that popular culture articles are popular and desired by a lot of article editors (and presumably readers, assuming that readership follows editorship interest trends).
Coming to a cooperative resolution of the "Delete vs Improve" problem would get us enough of the way there that setting both the purist camps on fire and hearing the lament of their women would become a credible and possibly legitimate way to solve the problem.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l