"David Gerard" wrote
On 15/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote
OK, so now let's make a proposal and see if it gains support. Who's good at writing such stuff?
Charles would be a good one.
Well thanks <s> a bunch </s> for the vote of confidence.
What is the actual issue? I think it is that inappropriate speedy nominations are proportionately more of a serious issue than "speedy keeps" at AfD; and certainly more a problem than inappropriate PROD nominations (PROD seems to be applied in a much more reaonable, even way). Of the three processes, the "triage" is at its most serious in CSD. When AfD gets it wrong it is at least after more eyeballs than two, possibly bloodshot.
Nominations under G1, G11, A1 and A7 all can be problematic. Careless use of terms "nonsense", "promotion", "no context", "non-notable" should be deprecated. These are not synonyms with "hard to read", "informative", "obscure topic", "out-of-the-way or annoying to me" (respectively). Basically we need to formulate something that isolates a bit better where things fall down the cracks in the system.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:56:30 +0000, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Nominations under G1, G11, A1 and A7 all can be problematic. Careless use of terms "nonsense", "promotion", "no context", "non-notable" should be deprecated. These are not synonyms with "hard to read", "informative", "obscure topic", "out-of-the-way or annoying to me" (respectively). Basically we need to formulate something that isolates a bit better where things fall down the cracks in the system.
Right. So how to achieve that?
We have two classes of immediately deletable crap: attacks and copyright violations (i.e. stuff that is actively harmful) and just plain junk. Spam is in the latter category.
Attacks should go in the fast track, without doubt.
Self-evident autobiographies should be userfied per [[WP:BITE]]. Corporate vanity probably needs more attention, since they rarely go away.
What would a new process look like?
Guy (JzG)
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
What is the actual issue? I think it is that inappropriate speedy nominations are proportionately more of a serious issue than "speedy keeps" at AfD; and certainly more a problem than inappropriate PROD nominations (PROD seems to be applied in a much more reaonable, even way). Of the three processes, the "triage" is at its most serious in CSD. When AfD gets it wrong it is at least after more eyeballs than two, possibly bloodshot.
Nominations under G1, G11, A1 and A7 all can be problematic. Careless use of terms "nonsense", "promotion", "no context", "non-notable" should be deprecated. These are not synonyms with "hard to read", "informative", "obscure topic", "out-of-the-way or annoying to me" (respectively). Basically we need to formulate something that isolates a bit better where things fall down the cracks in the system.
One approach that would cut out some of the worst instances would be to restrict speedy deletion to only: 1) copyright violations; or 2) new articles from the past week. If an article that isn't a copyright violation has been on Wikipedia for two years, surely it can wait another week as a PROD before being deleted, and the "keep up with the torrent of new articles" justification doesn't apply.
This would get rid of the instances (which constitute most of my speedy-undeletions) where an article that's been around for a while, and might even be watchlisted by multiple people, is speedy-tagged and deleted all in the course of about 2 minutes before any of the people who watch it get a chance to notice and object.
-Mark
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:42:38 -0800, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
One approach that would cut out some of the worst instances would be to restrict speedy deletion to only: 1) copyright violations; or 2) new articles from the past week. If an article that isn't a copyright violation has been on Wikipedia for two years, surely it can wait another week as a PROD before being deleted, and the "keep up with the torrent of new articles" justification doesn't apply.
That makes sense. It would be helpful to have the tail of the edit history in the delete dialog, but that's probably too much like hard work.
Guy (JzG)
On 11/16/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:42:38 -0800, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
One approach that would cut out some of the worst instances would be to restrict speedy deletion to only: 1) copyright violations; or 2) new articles from the past week. If an article that isn't a copyright violation has been on Wikipedia for two years, surely it can wait another week as a PROD before being deleted, and the "keep up with the torrent of new articles" justification doesn't apply.
That makes sense. It would be helpful to have the tail of the edit history in the delete dialog, but that's probably too much like hard work.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Just as some data, drawing no conclusions:
I've just now looked at 25 consecutive items up for speedy. There were: 15 new articles that were valid speedies, and 2 new ones that were not valid speedies (one probably suitable for deletion via prod or afd), 5 older articles that were valid speedies, and 3 that were not, all probably suitable for deletion via prod or afd).
On 11/16/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/16/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:42:38 -0800, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
One approach that would cut out some of the worst instances would be to restrict speedy deletion to only: 1) copyright violations; or 2) new articles from the past week. If an article that isn't a copyright violation has been on Wikipedia for two years, surely it can wait another week as a PROD before being deleted, and the "keep up with the torrent of new articles" justification doesn't apply.
That makes sense. It would be helpful to have the tail of the edit history in the delete dialog, but that's probably too much like hard work.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:59:54 -0500, "David Goodman" dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I've just now looked at 25 consecutive items up for speedy. There were: 15 new articles that were valid speedies, and 2 new ones that were not valid speedies (one probably suitable for deletion via prod or afd), 5 older articles that were valid speedies, and 3 that were not, all probably suitable for deletion via prod or afd).
OK, but what do we learn form this? What common factors did you observe in the ones that were not valid? Were there common factors in the nominator's ID?
Guy (JzG)
The only difference was that the worst sort of "John is my boyfriend and ..." are not in the older articles. Aside from this, all sorts of problems occur in new and old articles. The worst sort of spam and self advertising is also present in long established articles that have escaped notice. I don't think anything is gained by exempting older articles from speedy, though I would try to channel as much new and old into Prod, rather then Afd.
I see bias everywhere in all sort of deletion nominations, but at a low rate. I don't think it makes sense to build a system around preventing it--it is usually very obvious. If we were to change the system, it should be to provide greater opportunity to rescue new articles. I've discussed this, as have you, at the various deletion policy pages.
On 11/17/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:59:54 -0500, "David Goodman" dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I've just now looked at 25 consecutive items up for speedy. There were: 15 new articles that were valid speedies, and 2 new ones that were not valid speedies (one probably suitable for deletion via prod or afd), 5 older articles that were valid speedies, and 3 that were not, all probably suitable for deletion via prod or afd).
OK, but what do we learn form this? What common factors did you observe in the ones that were not valid? Were there common factors in the nominator's ID?
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l