[[WP:PROD]] - a lightweight deletion process - WikiEN-l - lists.wikimedia.org

List overview All Threads
Download

[[WP:PROD]] - a lightweight deletion process

Re: [WikiEN-l] Hidden text spam...

Hidden text spam and low traffic...

David Gerard

10 Feb 2006 10 Feb '06

9:01 p.m.

Interesting. Have a look. So far 52 people have signed up to watch it closely. Only objection I can think of is that it still doesn't involve notifying the article creator. But it strikes me as a damn good idea for getting the obvious off AFD and helping alleviate AFD-fatigue. - d.

Reply

Show replies by date

SP

10 Feb 10 Feb

9:17 p.m.

I used PROD this week to help a new user. Their very first article was speedy del. I switched the tag to PROD. Less WP:BITE. Before I could leave a message on both editor's pages someone had fixed the article. Found references, re-named it, and took the PROD tag off. The editor that nom for speedy was nice about it. Seems like a good process. Better way of communicating about borderline articles that need some investigation. Sydney aka FloNight David Gerard wrote:

Interesting. Have a look. So far 52 people have signed up to watch it closely. Only objection I can think of is that it still doesn't involve notifying the article creator. But it strikes me as a damn good idea for getting the obvious off AFD and helping alleviate AFD-fatigue. - d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-- Sydney Poore Go Bengals!

Reply

Justin Cormack

9:30 p.m.

On 10 Feb 2006, at 20:01, David Gerard wrote:

Interesting. Have a look. So far 52 people have signed up to watch it closely. Only objection I can think of is that it still doesn't involve notifying the article creator. But it strikes me as a damn good idea for getting the obvious off AFD and helping alleviate AFD-fatigue.

I looked through the articles and it all seemed reasonable. Will have another scan soon. Lets see how it affects AfD. Notify author would be nice - I hope people do it even if its optional. Justinc

Reply

MacGyverMagic/Mgm

11 Feb 11 Feb

12:37 a.m.

On 2/10/06, Justin Cormack <justin(a)specialbusservice.com> wrote:

On 10 Feb 2006, at 20:01, David Gerard wrote:

Interesting. Have a look. So far 52 people have signed up to watch it closely. Only objection I can think of is that it still doesn't involve notifying the article creator. But it strikes me as a damn good idea for getting the obvious off AFD and helping alleviate AFD-fatigue.

I looked through the articles and it all seemed reasonable. Will have another scan soon. Lets see how it affects AfD. Notify author would be nice - I hope people do it even if its optional. Justinc

Not a bad idea. It gives people time to work on an article and doesn't get the immediate hit your article is being AFDed, but is there some safeguard in place against people removing the tag? If someone removes an AFD tag, you still have the central listing. What happens if they remove a prod tag? Do I have to watchlist it and hope it is the last edit on the article if I check it? Mgm

Reply

Stephen Bain

12:44 a.m.

On 2/11/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Not a bad idea. It gives people time to work on an article and doesn't get the immediate hit your article is being AFDed, but is there some safeguard in place against people removing the tag? If someone removes an AFD tag, you still have the central listing. What happens if they remove a prod tag? Do I have to watchlist it and hope it is the last edit on the article if I check it?

From the proposal page, it seems that removing the tag is the method

for contesting deletion. The remover is advised to improve the article, to tag it for cleanup or similar, or to send it to AfD, but these are all suggestions. Much of it would seem to depend on the person who first addresses the tag, and on which of these courses of action they choose. Hopefully people will choose wisely! -- Stephen Bain stephen.bain(a)gmail.com

Reply

MacGyverMagic/Mgm

1:23 a.m.

On 2/11/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/11/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Not a bad idea. It gives people time to work on an article and doesn't

get

the immediate hit your article is being AFDed, but is there some

safeguard

in place against people removing the tag? If someone removes an AFD tag, you still have the central listing. What happens if they remove a prod tag? Do I have to watchlist it and hope it

is

the last edit on the article if I check it?

From the proposal page, it seems that removing the tag is the method

for contesting deletion. The remover is advised to improve the article, to tag it for cleanup or similar, or to send it to AfD, but these are all suggestions. Much of it would seem to depend on the person who first addresses the tag, and on which of these courses of action they choose. Hopefully people will choose wisely!

But suppose for a moment this is someone with no intention of improving the article or taking it to AFD because they think they own the article. How would one notice? Mgm

Reply

Guy Chapman

1:27 a.m.

But suppose for a moment this is someone with no intention of improving the article or taking it to AFD because they think they own the article. How would one notice?

Watchlist of the nominator? Guy

Reply

SP

3:27 a.m.

Watchlist. That's how I knew that someone was working on the article I listed. Sydney aka FloNight MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

On 2/11/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/11/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Not a bad idea. It gives people time to work on an article and doesn't

get

the immediate hit your article is being AFDed, but is there some

safeguard

in place against people removing the tag? If someone removes an AFD tag, you still have the central listing. What happens if they remove a prod tag? Do I have to watchlist it and hope it

is

the last edit on the article if I check it? From the proposal page, it seems that removing the tag is the method

for contesting deletion. The remover is advised to improve the article, to tag it for cleanup or similar, or to send it to AfD, but these are all suggestions. Much of it would seem to depend on the person who first addresses the tag, and on which of these courses of action they choose. Hopefully people will choose wisely!

But suppose for a moment this is someone with no intention of improving the article or taking it to AFD because they think they own the article. How would one notice? Mgm _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-- Sydney Poore Go Bengals!

Reply

Jesse W

5:30 a.m.

On Feb 10, 2006, at 3:37 PM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

Not a bad idea. It gives people time to work on an article and doesn't get the immediate hit your article is being AFDed, but is there some safeguard in place against people removing the tag? If someone removes an AFD tag, you still have the central listing. What happens if they remove a prod tag? Do I have to watchlist it and hope it is the last edit on the article if I check it?

There is a log of the current status of any article which has had the PROD tag added to it at any time; i.e. if someone removes the tag, it shows up in this log - with the username, edit summary, and the current status of the article(AfD'd, deleted, copyvio, etc) visible in the log. That log is here: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/en_prod_history Also, there is the currently tagged log ( http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/ en_proposed_deletion ), which lists the time the article was tagged, the article name, the reason provided, and the number of hours remaining before the article can be deleted. Overall, there is *more* information available about a PROD'ed article than is available about a AfD'ed article, although we could of course fix this with proper coding. Jesse Weinstein

Reply

Phil Boswell

13 Feb 13 Feb

1:02 p.m.

"Jesse W" <jessw(a)netwood.net> wrote in message news:8f3ddabfe54d225b9b9d9bc9501e2d3f@netwood.net...

On Feb 10, 2006, at 3:37 PM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

[snip]

There is a log of the current status of any article which has had the PROD tag added to it at any time; i.e. if someone removes the tag, it shows up in this log - with the username, edit summary, and the current status of the article(AfD'd, deleted, copyvio, etc) visible in the log. That log is here: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/en_prod_history

That's a very handy tool, which would likely prove useful in other contexts also, assuming it can be generalised to monitor other notices? One thing: could the HTML be fixed so that it actually wraps to the browser window (instead of fixing the width, which is currently way too wide for my browser)? -- Phil [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]

Reply

Ryan Delaney

11 Feb 11 Feb

3:10 a.m.

I like it. I still prefer pure wiki deletion, but this is pretty similar in a lot of important respects. I'd endorse it as a complete replacement of AFD. Ryan On 2/10/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Interesting. Have a look. So far 52 people have signed up to watch it closely. Only objection I can think of is that it still doesn't involve notifying the article creator. But it strikes me as a damn good idea for getting the obvious off AFD and helping alleviate AFD-fatigue. - d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply

geni

3:11 a.m.

No one appears to be screaming about it yet so it appears so far to be a sucess. -- geni

Reply

Philip Welch

3:15 a.m.

I like it. I still prefer pure wiki deletion, but this is pretty similar in a lot of important respects. I'd endorse it as a complete replacement of AFD.

That's impossible--PROD can't handle contested deletions, only uncontested. -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

Reply

Ryan Delaney

3:20 a.m.

On 2/10/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia(a)philwelch.net> wrote:

That's impossible--PROD can't handle contested deletions, only uncontested.

Any particular reason why?

Reply

Philip Welch

3:25 a.m.

That's impossible--PROD can't handle contested deletions, only uncontested.

Any particular reason why?

All you need to stop PROD is one person to remove the tag. In a dispute, people would edit war over the PROD tag until finally settling down and having a consensus-finding discussion—i.e., engaging in the AfD process. This is why PROD is only a partial replacement. That said, we can reform AfD so that we don't launch headfirst into the voting (yes. VOTING) process and actually discuss our concerns first, with the help of an impartial admin-facilitator whose job is to carry out the ultimate decision. This sounds laborious but if PROD can handle most of the load we can spare the resources. -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

Reply

Ryan Delaney

3:34 a.m.

On 2/10/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia(a)philwelch.net> wrote:

That's impossible--PROD can't handle contested deletions, only uncontested.

Any particular reason why?

All you need to stop PROD is one person to remove the tag. In a dispute, people would edit war over the PROD tag until finally settling down and having a consensus-finding discussion—i.e., engaging in the AfD process.

You are aware that bald reversion is not allowed and that rules like [[WP:3RR]] -- or any admin with sense -- will stop it, right? Do you know that this is exactly the same kind of canned non-objection that an uninitiated person makes against the very idea of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit? This is why PROD is only a partial replacement. That said, we can

reform AfD so that we don't launch headfirst into the voting (yes. VOTING) process and actually discuss our concerns first, with the help of an impartial admin-facilitator whose job is to carry out the ultimate decision. This sounds laborious but if PROD can handle most of the load we can spare the resources.

I'm willing to listen to any ideas about reforming AFD, but I tend to think that the whole idea of AFD is like putting a round peg in a square hole, and that it is probably a better idea to just scrap the whole thing rather than waste time fixing something that is fundamentally broken. Ryan

Reply

Philip Welch

3:38 a.m.

That's impossible--PROD can't handle contested deletions, only uncontested.

Any particular reason why?

All you need to stop PROD is one person to remove the tag. In a dispute, people would edit war over the PROD tag until finally settling down and having a consensus-finding discussion—i.e., engaging in the AfD process.

You are aware that bald reversion is not allowed and that rules like [[WP:3RR]] -- or any admin with sense -- will stop it, right? Do you know that this is exactly the same kind of canned non-objection that an uninitiated person makes against the very idea of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit?

Right—and the reason we're disallowed from edit warring is because we make those decisions from consensus-finding discussions, which is the entire part of what I said that you just completely ignored in favor of making a personal attack. Charming. -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

Reply

Ryan Delaney

3:44 a.m.

On 2/10/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia(a)philwelch.net> wrote:

You are aware that bald reversion is not allowed and that rules like [[WP:3RR]] -- or any admin with sense -- will stop it, right? Do you know that this is exactly the same kind of canned non-objection that an uninitiated person makes against the very idea of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit?

Right—and the reason we're disallowed from edit warring is because we make those decisions from consensus-finding discussions, which is the entire part of what I said that you just completely ignored in favor of making a personal attack. Charming.

I didn't make a personal attack. I attacked your objection. Ryan

Reply

Philip Welch

3:50 a.m.

You are aware that bald reversion is not allowed and that rules like [[WP:3RR]] -- or any admin with sense -- will stop it, right? Do you know that this is exactly the same kind of canned non-objection that an uninitiated person makes against the very idea of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit?

Right—and the reason we're disallowed from edit warring is because we make those decisions from consensus-finding discussions, which is the entire part of what I said that you just completely ignored in favor of making a personal attack. Charming.

I didn't make a personal attack. I attacked your objection.

Fine, but you still ignored the main point of my argument which was, and I quote, "until finally settling down and having a consensus- finding discussion—i.e., engaging in the AfD process." To repeat myself, any dispute over placement of a PROD tag would ultimately result in "finally settling down and having a consensus- finding discussion—i.e., engaging in the AfD process." In other words, just as normal edit wars are discouraged in favor of "settling down and having a consensus-finding discussion", edit wars over PROD tags would *ideally* be replaced with "settling down and having a consensus-finding discussion" would, in the case of a PROD dispute, constitute, in effect, "engaging in the AfD process". In summary, any dispute over the placement of a PROD tag would, at best, result in "having a consensus-finding discussion—i.e., engaging in the AfD process". (I hope that was clear.) -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

Reply

jayjg

12 Feb 12 Feb

2:10 a.m.

On 2/10/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I'm willing to listen to any ideas about reforming AFD, but I tend to think that the whole idea of AFD is like putting a round peg in a square hole, and that it is probably a better idea to just scrap the whole thing rather than waste time fixing something that is fundamentally broken.

It astonishes me that people are still making these kinds of obviously false assertions; is it simply the hope that repeating them often enough will somehow make them true? The truth is that 95% of the decisions made by AfD (and perhaps even more) are correct ones; unencyclopedic articles are deleted, and good articles are rapidly kept. Even those people who consistently assert that AfD is "toxic" admit that. All systems have flaws, and I've never seen any evidence that *any* other system would have a higher accuracy rate. Is there any way these threads could avoid this kind of rhetoric in the future? Or is it just a lost cause? Jay.

Reply

Ryan Delaney

3:43 a.m.

On 2/11/06, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:

The truth is that 95% of the decisions made by AfD (and perhaps even more) are correct ones

I agree absolutely. But I think this is more of a function of the fact that 95% the time, it's obvious that an article should either be deleted, or it shouldn't; not any particular quality of AFD. In these cases, the same decision would have been reached under any deletion system. The only real difference is that under PWD it would have been reached faster, but I'll be willing to say that is a trivial contrast. The basis upon which I'm judging the various possible deletion systems is the 5% of articles where it isn't clear whether it ought to be deleted. Ryan

Reply

Alphax (Wikipedia email)

11 Feb 11 Feb

7:33 a.m.

Philip Welch wrote:

That's impossible--PROD can't handle contested deletions, only uncontested.

Any particular reason why?

All you need to stop PROD is one person to remove the tag. In a dispute, people would edit war over the PROD tag until finally settling down and having a consensus-finding discussion—i.e., engaging in the AfD process. This is why PROD is only a partial replacement. That said, we can reform AfD so that we don't launch headfirst into the voting (yes. VOTING) process and actually discuss our concerns first, with the help of an impartial admin-facilitator whose job is to carry out the ultimate decision. This sounds laborious but if PROD can handle most of the load we can spare the resources.

A few thoughts on the matter: - Complementary to the {{prod}} tag is {{prod-2}}, which says "I agree with this nomination". - For articles that have been tagged with {{prod}}, but the deletion is disputed for reasons which cannot immediately be expressed in the article, {{hangon}} (currently used to contest CSDs) - Inspired by DFA, AfD should be changed from 7 days of voting to 5 days of *discussion* followed by 2 days of /straw polling/; remember, [[m:Voting is evil|]]. -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

Reply

Jesse W

8:01 a.m.

On Feb 10, 2006, at 10:33 PM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

A few thoughts on the matter: - Complementary to the {{prod}} tag is {{prod-2}}, which says "I agree with this nomination".

{{prod-2}} is depreciated by many users/supporters of PROD. Either the person adding it thinks it is controversial(i.e. someone will want to keep it), in which case it should be listed on AfD, or they don't think anyone will disagree with their view on it(i.e. that it should be deleted) in which case tagging it with {{prod-2}} is redundant and a waste of time. (All this is my opinion only of course)

- For articles that have been tagged with {{prod}}, but the deletion is disputed for reasons which cannot immediately be expressed in the article, {{hangon}} (currently used to contest CSDs)

No. This is really seriously wrong. (pardon the caps, but this is important) *If The Deletion Is Disputed For Any Reason, The PROD Tag Should Be Removed*. That's fundamental to the process - there is no such thing as different classes of disputes with the deletion - anyone who thinks the article should not be deleted(for any reason or no reason) should remove the tag. PROD is for uncontroversial deletions, AfD(or some other process) is for controversial ones. It is really important to keep these separate. Jesse Weinstein

Reply

Ryan Delaney

8:36 a.m.

On 2/11/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:

- Inspired by DFA, AfD should be changed from 7 days of voting to 5 days of *discussion* followed by 2 days of /straw polling/; remember, [[m:Voting is evil|]].

I think I'm not understanding the difference between a straw poll and a vote. And it still doesn't address concerns that the editors who frequent AFD may not be representative of wikipedia consensus on deletion. Ryan

Reply

Alphax (Wikipedia email)

8:46 a.m.

Ryan Delaney wrote:

On 2/11/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:

- Inspired by DFA, AfD should be changed from 7 days of voting to 5 days of *discussion* followed by 2 days of /straw polling/; remember, [[m:Voting is evil|]].

I think I'm not understanding the difference between a straw poll and a vote. And it still doesn't address concerns that the editors who frequent AFD may not be representative of wikipedia consensus on deletion.

Who /is/ representative of Wikipedia consensus on deletion? -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

Reply

Ryan Delaney

9:22 a.m.

On 2/11/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Who /is/ representative of Wikipedia consensus on deletion?

No one -- which is why I object so strongly to the idea that deletion should be treated differently from other edits; or that deletion should be regarded as "final" because of an AFD, as if "the community" has decided that an article should be deleted. That is a farce. An AFD means that the people who happened to be looking at AFD at the time thought the article should be deleted. Those people can and do make mistakes, which is why those mistakes should be easily reversible. No edit on Wikipedia, including deletion, should be regarded as final or as having a mandate from some immutable process. There is no good reason to treat deletion differently than any other edit. Ryan

Reply

SJ

10:32 a.m.

On 2/11/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/11/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Who /is/ representative of Wikipedia consensus on deletion?

No one -- which is why I object so strongly to the idea that deletion should be treated differently from other edits; or that deletion should be regarded as "final" because of an AFD, as if "the community" has decided that an article should be deleted. That is a farce. An AFD means that the people who

Calling this idea a farce is a bit much. Please remember that the AFD process guarantees that anyone who visits the article over the course of a week, and anyone browsing AFD who care about the subject, will be inclined to read the AFD discussion/vote. Which is a bit different from "the people who happened to be looking at AFD at the time". Mistakes happen via AFD all the time; results should not be immutable; and the system is very far from perfect. That said, it is better than a random process

There is no good reason to treat deletion differently than any other edit.

Any process which involves dozens of people over the course of a week should naturally be treated differently, and reversed more slowly, than a single edit by a single user. This applies equally to AfD results and to FPC/FAC selections. -- ++SJ

Reply

Ryan Delaney

11:33 a.m.

On 2/11/06, SJ <2.718281828(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Mistakes happen via AFD all the time; results should not be immutable; and the system is very far from perfect. That said, it is better than a random process

I agree. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we should do deletion randomly.

There is no good reason to treat deletion differently than any other edit. Any process which involves dozens of people over the course of a week should naturally be treated differently, and reversed more slowly, than a single edit by a single user. This applies equally to AfD results and to FPC/FAC selections.

I'm sorry, I think you misunderstand me. I mean that deletion itself should be done like any other edit, and not through any process like AFD. Since this PROD deletion system is closer to the simplicity that I consider ideal, I endorse it. But I think it could be improved even further. Ryan

Reply

SJ

12:22 p.m.

On 2/11/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/11/06, SJ <2.718281828(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Mistakes happen via AFD all the time; results should not be immutable; and the system is very far from perfect. That said, it is better than a random process

I agree. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we should do deletion randomly.

There is no good reason to treat deletion differently than any other edit. Any process which involves dozens of people over the course of a week should naturally be treated differently, and reversed more slowly, than a single edit by a single user. This applies equally to AfD results and to FPC/FAC selections.

I'm sorry, I think you misunderstand me. I mean that deletion itself should be done like any other edit, and not through any process like AFD. Since this PROD deletion system is closer to the simplicity that I consider ideal, I endorse it. But I think it could be improved even further.

There's definitely room for a wiki-style 'deletion'; this would not match many of the current uses of what we call deletion. Perhaps we could use a "make invisible" button that lets anyone make an article 'invisible' -- * Not cached or spidered by web-bots * Only showing up in WP searches if the user explicitly asks to match invisible items * When you go to the page, in place of the standard "there is no article with this title" text, show a "There was an article under this title which was removed by <user> on <date> (''<reason>'') [link to invisible text]." * Invisibility is likewise reversible. This would not be a substitute for deletion in all cases. SJ

Reply

Gareth Hughes ([[User:Garzo]])

1:38 p.m.

Just looking through the ist of articles on PROD, and seeing how they have been handled, you can see that the process is having a positive effect. It seems to be all about less talk and more positive action. If someone gets awkward about *their* article being on PROD, then it's time to take to AFD, isn't it? Gareth Hughes. On 11/02/06, SJ <2.718281828(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/11/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/11/06, SJ <2.718281828(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Mistakes happen via AFD all the time; results should not be immutable; and the system is very far from perfect. That said, it is better than a random process

I agree. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we should do deletion randomly.

There is no good reason to treat deletion differently than any other edit. Any process which involves dozens of people over the course of a week should naturally be treated differently, and reversed more slowly, than a single edit by a single user. This applies equally to AfD results and to FPC/FAC selections.

I'm sorry, I think you misunderstand me. I mean that deletion itself should be done like any other edit, and not through any process like AFD. Since this PROD deletion system is closer to the simplicity that I consider ideal, I endorse it. But I think it could be improved even further.

There's definitely room for a wiki-style 'deletion'; this would not match many of the current uses of what we call deletion. Perhaps we could use a "make invisible" button that lets anyone make an article 'invisible' -- * Not cached or spidered by web-bots * Only showing up in WP searches if the user explicitly asks to match invisible items * When you go to the page, in place of the standard "there is no article with this title" text, show a "There was an article under this title which was removed by <user> on <date> (''<reason>'') [link to invisible text]." * Invisibility is likewise reversible. This would not be a substitute for deletion in all cases. SJ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply

MacGyverMagic/Mgm

5:50 p.m.

On 2/11/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/11/06, SJ <2.718281828(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Mistakes happen via AFD all the time; results should not be immutable; and the system is very far from perfect. That said, it is better than a random process

I agree. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we should do deletion randomly.

There is no good reason to treat deletion differently than any other

edit.

Any process which involves dozens of people over the course of a week should naturally be treated differently, and reversed more slowly, than a single edit by a single user. This applies equally to AfD results and to FPC/FAC selections.

I'm sorry, I think you misunderstand me. I mean that deletion itself should be done like any other edit, and not through any process like AFD. Since this PROD deletion system is closer to the simplicity that I consider ideal, I endorse it. But I think it could be improved even further. Ryan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

If deletion was done like any other edit, we would have to somehow stop wheelwarring about deletion (which is now greatly confined). There'd be people deleting articles about Penises and certain Cartoons just because they disagree with it. I find a tag on the article a lot less intrusive than finding an article deleted by one user's whim. The opinion of one user is hardly representative of the community. The whole point that the actual deletion button is given to admins is that they know the deletion guidelines and are supposed to be trusted members. If deletion/invisibility powers were given to anyone, we'd end up with a mess - useful articles deleted because one person didn't like them. And then there's the strain on the server when substantially large articles get deleted and undeleted multiple times. Mgm

Reply

Ryan Delaney

12 Feb 12 Feb

1:23 a.m.

On 2/11/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:

If deletion was done like any other edit, we would have to somehow stop wheelwarring about deletion (which is now greatly confined).

And if you made an encyclopedia that anyone could edit, you would have to somehow stop edit warring about content disputes. I know I am being sarcastic about this, as I have been in the past, but I really can't believe that anyone on a Wiki seriously raises this objection. We don't have votes to determine how any other edits should be done, that are regarded as final once the vote is completed-- and with good reason. But we do with deletion. Why? The whole point that the actual deletion button is given to admins is that

they know the deletion guidelines and are supposed to be trusted members. If deletion/invisibility powers were given to anyone, we'd end up with a mess - useful articles deleted because one person didn't like them. And then there's the strain on the server when substantially large articles get deleted and undeleted multiple times.

1) This still begs the question why deletion should be treated differently than other edits. We don't require that only people who understand the editing guidelines can use the "edit" button, but we do require it for deletion. Why? 2) Please ask the devs if it strains the server to have articles blanked and unblanked. This is already the case with vandalism, yet the servers seem to chug along fine. I want to know if there actually is any evidence that this would be any serious problem for the servers that isn't already the case with vandals. Ryan

Reply

John Lee

8:04 a.m.

Ryan Delaney wrote:

<snip> 2) Please ask the devs if it strains the server to have articles blanked and unblanked. This is already the case with vandalism, yet the servers seem to chug along fine. I want to know if there actually is any evidence that this would be any serious problem for the servers that isn't already the case with vandals. Ryan

When you delete a page, you also delete the whole page history. When you blank a page, you only add a blank revision of the page to the history. John Lee

Reply

Jon

9 a.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

The Sunday Times (the most popular British Sunday broadsheet) has done a hatchet job on Wikipedia pointing out that it is riddled by vandalism. After lampooning the fact that we have 1000 volunteers just to keep the vandalism at bay, it quotes Jimmy as saying: "I thought it would be overrun with idiots but there are far more people doing good than those who try to be harmful." Mind you, when WP has more people keeping the idiots at bay rather than writing content (as most likely is the case now), something has gone wrong. If you want to read the article, see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2036558,00.html . Jon --------------------------------- To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.

Reply

Alphax (Wikipedia email)

9:42 a.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

Jon wrote:

The Sunday Times (the most popular British Sunday broadsheet) has done a hatchet job on Wikipedia pointing out that it is riddled by vandalism. After lampooning the fact that we have 1000 volunteers just to keep the vandalism at bay, it quotes Jimmy as saying: "I thought it would be overrun with idiots but there are far more people doing good than those who try to be harmful." Mind you, when WP has more people keeping the idiots at bay rather than writing content (as most likely is the case now), something has gone wrong. If you want to read the article, see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2036558,00.html .

Damn it, where's the edit button? Or at least a "comment" button? They slander us for being wrong some of the time, but they won't even let people comment on how accurate THEY are??? -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

Reply

John Lee

10:09 a.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

Jon wrote:

The Sunday Times (the most popular British Sunday broadsheet) has done a hatchet job on Wikipedia pointing out that it is riddled by vandalism. After lampooning the fact that we have 1000 volunteers just to keep the vandalism at bay, it quotes Jimmy as saying: "I thought it would be overrun with idiots but there are far more people doing good than those who try to be harmful." Mind you, when WP has more people keeping the idiots at bay rather than writing content (as most likely is the case now), something has gone wrong. If you want to read the article, see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2036558,00.html .

Damn it, where's the edit button? Or at least a "comment" button? They slander us for being wrong some of the time, but they won't even let people comment on how accurate THEY are??? ------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know, I couldn't resist the urge to edit the "2.5 million entries" part to "900,000 articles". :( John

Reply

charles matthews

10:05 a.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

"Jon" wrote

The Sunday Times (the most popular British Sunday broadsheet) has done a hatchet job on Wikipedia pointing out that it is riddled by vandalism.

Hey, it's the Murdoch press. Not the place to go to be informed about anything. Charles

Reply

Jesse W

10:29 a.m.

New subject: "more people keeping the idiots at bay" (was Re: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times)

On Feb 12, 2006, at 12:00 AM, Jon wrote:

Mind you, when WP has more people keeping the idiots at bay rather than writing content (as most likely is the case now), something has gone wrong.

My first thought was, No, wait - it means something has gone *right* , we have so much already covered that the balance shifts to defending what we have, rather than adding more. But then I thought, yeah, in that case, why are we keeping it in a wiki format? If it's actually stable, then put it in straight HTML, mirror it everywhere (oh wait, we already do that), and shake hands on a job well done... ;-) In any case, what evidence do you have that suggests this? What comes to mind could be: percentage of RC edits that are reversions, rather than additions - this is invalid because people may add content in large pieces, not in lots of edits. Any other measurements people can think of? Just wanted to bring this up, Jesse Weinstein

Reply

Keith Old

10:31 a.m.

New subject: "more people keeping the idiots at bay" (was Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times)

On 2/12/06, Jesse W <jessw(a)netwood.net> wrote:

On Feb 12, 2006, at 12:00 AM, Jon wrote:

Mind you, when WP has more people keeping the idiots at bay rather than writing content (as most likely is the case now), something has gone wrong.

My first thought was, No, wait - it means something has gone *right* , we have so much already covered that the balance shifts to defending what we have, rather than adding more. But then I thought, yeah, in that case, why are we keeping it in a wiki format? If it's actually stable, then put it in straight HTML, mirror it everywhere (oh wait, we already do that), and shake hands on a job well done... ;-) In any case, what evidence do you have that suggests this? What comes to mind could be: percentage of RC edits that are reversions, rather than additions - this is invalid because people may add content in large pieces, not in lots of edits. Any other measurements people can think of? Just wanted to bring this up, Jesse Weinstein _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

I suspect most people spend time doing both especially as an admin. I normally spend a lot of time of the help desk responding to reports of vandalism and other problems. I also spend part of my time editing articles of my own and creating articles. If we have 1,000 people combatting vandalism, it doesn't mean that they spend all their time doing it. Regards Keith Old Keith Old Wikipedia Help Desk

Reply

STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA

11:34 a.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

I agree with the observation. As the popularity of Wiki continues to go up, the vandals will keep increasing in numbers, which in turn will force an increase in admin numbers. This, to me, sounds bad, because the admin cult will also grow in size. We can expect more blocking and more power tripping. I mean, when admins enjoy using their tools more than working on articles, something must be wrong. Anittas --- Jon <thagudearbh(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

The Sunday Times (the most popular British Sunday broadsheet) has done a hatchet job on Wikipedia pointing out that it is riddled by vandalism. After lampooning the fact that we have 1000 volunteers just to keep the vandalism at bay, it quotes Jimmy as saying: "I thought it would be overrun with idiots but there are far more people doing good than those who try to be harmful." Mind you, when WP has more people keeping the idiots at bay rather than writing content (as most likely is the case now), something has gone wrong. If you want to read the article, see

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2036558,00.html

. Jon --------------------------------- To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Reply

charles matthews

12:43 p.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote

We can expect more blocking and more power tripping. I mean, when admins enjoy using their tools more than working on articles, something must be wrong.

We can expect more of everything: more articles, and more random bitching I suppose. Charles

Reply

Steve Bennett

2:21 p.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

This paragraph is particularly inaccurate:

Wikipedia was set up five years ago as a non-profit enterprise,

designed to provide almost

real-time biographies and a people's version of history. It has only

three full-time

employees to vet people's entries, relying on the near-1,000

enthusiasts to correct

vandalism quickly.

Steve On 2/12/06, Jon <thagudearbh(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

The Sunday Times (the most popular British Sunday broadsheet) has done a hatchet job on Wikipedia pointing out that it is riddled by vandalism. After lampooning the fact that we have 1000 volunteers just to keep the vandalism at bay, it quotes Jimmy as saying: "I thought it would be overrun with idiots but there are far more people doing good than those who try to be harmful." Mind you, when WP has more people keeping the idiots at bay rather than writing content (as most likely is the case now), something has gone wrong. If you want to read the article, see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2036558,00.html . Jon --------------------------------- To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply

Ryan Delaney

2:36 p.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

On 2/12/06, Jon <thagudearbh(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Mind you, when WP has more people keeping the idiots at bay rather than writing content (as most likely is the case now), something has gone wrong.

Uh, what? A lot of us contribute in many different ways, and reverting vandalism is something that practically every active Wikipedia editor does from time to time, in addition to improving the articles. Vandalism really is FAR from our biggest problem. Ryan

Reply

geni

4:45 p.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

On 2/12/06, Jon <thagudearbh(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

The Sunday Times (the most popular British Sunday broadsheet) has done a hatchet job on Wikipedia pointing out that it is riddled by vandalism. After lampooning the fact that we have 1000 volunteers just to keep the vandalism at bay

We don't. 500 tops. -- geni

Reply

Sam Korn

4:47 p.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

On 2/12/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/12/06, Jon <thagudearbh(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

The Sunday Times (the most popular British Sunday broadsheet) has done a hatchet job on Wikipedia pointing out that it is riddled by vandalism. After lampooning the fact that we have 1000 volunteers just to keep the vandalism at bay

We don't. 500 tops.

Not all volunteers are administrators. -- Sam

Reply

geni

5:17 p.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

On 2/12/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Not all volunteers are administrators.

I know but if we limit to admins we have maybe 200 vandle fighters. -- geni

Reply

Sam Korn

5:47 p.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

On 2/12/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I know but if we limit to admins we have maybe 200 vandle fighters.

Do you actually have *any* evidence for this? It does seem like you are simply pulling figures from the air without *any* justification. -- Sam

Reply

geni

5:55 p.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

On 2/12/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/12/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I know but if we limit to admins we have maybe 200 vandle fighters.

Do you actually have *any* evidence for this? It does seem like you are simply pulling figures from the air without *any* justification. -- Sam

Sure. Pre the introduction of no anons creating articles you could roughly work out how much vandle fighting an admin was doing by their deletion rate. Someone posted a list of the number of admin actions had been done by each admin in the last month. About 200 admins racked up over 100 actions. Once you factor in all the admins who got their 100 by doing things other than vandalism (mine tend to come from WP:CP) you end up with less than 200. Factor in growth from then and you probably have around 200 admins vandle fighting. -- geni

Reply

Sam Korn

6:02 p.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

On 2/12/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Sure. Pre the introduction of no anons creating articles you could roughly work out how much vandle fighting an admin was doing by their deletion rate. Someone posted a list of the number of admin actions had been done by each admin in the last month. About 200 admins racked up over 100 actions. Once you factor in all the admins who got their 100 by doing things other than vandalism (mine tend to come from WP:CP) you end up with less than 200. Factor in growth from then and you probably have around 200 admins vandle fighting.

Your statement fails to acknowledge that the admins who don't make 100 deletions in a month are still active and still are fighting vandalism. I don't delete 100 articles a month. I doubt I ever have, but I certainly used to be very active in combatting vandalism. You underestimate the good that many people doing a little can do. -- Sam

Reply

John Lee

6:07 p.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

Sam Korn wrote:

On 2/12/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Sure. Pre the introduction of no anons creating articles you could roughly work out how much vandle fighting an admin was doing by their deletion rate. Someone posted a list of the number of admin actions had been done by each admin in the last month. About 200 admins racked up over 100 actions. Once you factor in all the admins who got their 100 by doing things other than vandalism (mine tend to come from WP:CP) you end up with less than 200. Factor in growth from then and you probably have around 200 admins vandle fighting.

Your statement fails to acknowledge that the admins who don't make 100 deletions in a month are still active and still are fighting vandalism. I don't delete 100 articles a month. I doubt I ever have, but I certainly used to be very active in combatting vandalism. You underestimate the good that many people doing a little can do. -- Sam

"Admin actions" include blocking. (Not agreeing with geni, just pointing out a fact.) John

Reply

geni

6:24 p.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

On 2/12/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/12/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Sure. Pre the introduction of no anons creating articles you could roughly work out how much vandle fighting an admin was doing by their deletion rate. Someone posted a list of the number of admin actions had been done by each admin in the last month. About 200 admins racked up over 100 actions. Once you factor in all the admins who got their 100 by doing things other than vandalism (mine tend to come from WP:CP) you end up with less than 200. Factor in growth from then and you probably have around 200 admins vandle fighting.

Your statement fails to acknowledge that the admins who don't make 100 deletions in a month are still active and still are fighting vandalism. I don't delete 100 articles a month. I doubt I ever have, but I certainly used to be very active in combatting vandalism.

You came close to makeing that many deletions november 2005

You underestimate the good that many people doing a little can do. -- Sam

Show me where I have done that -- geni

Reply

Sam Korn

6:43 p.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

On 2/12/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/12/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Your statement fails to acknowledge that the admins who don't make 100 deletions in a month are still active and still are fighting vandalism. I don't delete 100 articles a month. I doubt I ever have, but I certainly used to be very active in combatting vandalism.

You came close to makeing that many deletions november 2005

Crikey.

You underestimate the good that many people doing a little can do.

Show me where I have done that

Your logic appears to be "n people did a lot of counter vandalism work, therefore n people do counter vandalism work". (n obviously being constant) I say that there are a lot of people doing a little bit of counter vandalism work, and that these people form the basis of our anti-vandalism functions. You have simply ignored them. -- Sam

Reply

geni

8:45 p.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

On 2/12/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/12/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/12/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Your statement fails to acknowledge that the admins who don't make 100 deletions in a month are still active and still are fighting vandalism. I don't delete 100 articles a month. I doubt I ever have, but I certainly used to be very active in combatting vandalism.

You came close to makeing that many deletions november 2005

Crikey.

You underestimate the good that many people doing a little can do.

Show me where I have done that

Your logic appears to be "n people did a lot of counter vandalism work, therefore n people do counter vandalism work". (n obviously being constant) I say that there are a lot of people doing a little bit of counter vandalism work, and that these people form the basis of our anti-vandalism functions. You have simply ignored them. -- Sam

Not really. It is the people prepared to sit there hour after hour dealing with stuff as it come through that forms the basis of our anti-vandalism functions. Just as it is a relivity small number of hightly active users who write most of our articles. -- geni

Reply

Sam Korn

10:04 p.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

On 2/12/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Not really. It is the people prepared to sit there hour after hour dealing with stuff as it come through that forms the basis of our anti-vandalism functions. Just as it is a relivity small number of hightly active users who write most of our articles.

Also inaccurate. It is a relatively small number of highly active users who write most of our *best* articles. Most articles, while not as polished, are not touched by these users. -- Sam

Reply

geni

10:41 p.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

On 2/12/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote: Most articles, while not

as polished, are not touched by these users. -- Sam

Umm evidence? -- geni

Reply

Sam Korn

10:59 p.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

On 2/12/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/12/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote: Most articles, while not

as polished, are not touched by these users. -- Sam

Umm evidence?

Touché! I guess I cannot substantiate this other than with basic logic, that there are just too many articles for a small core of users to have edited. Even if one in ten were of any quality at all (perhaps even just one in a hundred), it is still too many for a small group to have reasonably edited. -- Sam

Reply

geni

11:16 p.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

On 2/12/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/12/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/12/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote: Most articles, while not

as polished, are not touched by these users. -- Sam

Umm evidence?

Touché! I guess I cannot substantiate this other than with basic logic, that there are just too many articles for a small core of users to have edited. Even if one in ten were of any quality at all (perhaps even just one in a hundred), it is still too many for a small group to have reasonably edited. -- Sam

Problem with that claim is that stub storting and adding catigories results in people editing a heck of a lot of artices. -- geni

Reply

Andrew Gray

11:23 p.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

On 12/02/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/12/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Umm evidence?

Touché! I guess I cannot substantiate this other than with basic logic, that there are just too many articles for a small core of users to have edited. Even if one in ten were of any quality at all (perhaps even just one in a hundred), it is still too many for a small group to have reasonably edited.

Lets see. Geni has 8188 edits, 3329 article edits, over 3351 pages. Sam has 8814 edits, 3542 article edits, over 4708 pages. I have 8344 edits, 4647 article edits, over 4369 pages. Lets assume, since those numbers are broadly similar, that we average out to a statistically normal "heavy user", who has... 8442 edits, of which 3839 (45%) are to articles. These are over 4143 pages, so our user has perhaps edited 1,880 seperate article pages - call it 2,000. Q. How many of those highly active users would we need for it to be statistically likely that one had, at some point, edited each of our 970,000 articles? (5 marks. Show working) -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Reply

Sam Korn

11:28 p.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

On 2/12/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/02/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/12/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Umm evidence?

Touché! I guess I cannot substantiate this other than with basic logic, that there are just too many articles for a small core of users to have edited. Even if one in ten were of any quality at all (perhaps even just one in a hundred), it is still too many for a small group to have reasonably edited.

Lets see. Geni has 8188 edits, 3329 article edits, over 3351 pages. Sam has 8814 edits, 3542 article edits, over 4708 pages. I have 8344 edits, 4647 article edits, over 4369 pages. Lets assume, since those numbers are broadly similar, that we average out to a statistically normal "heavy user", who has... 8442 edits, of which 3839 (45%) are to articles. These are over 4143 pages, so our user has perhaps edited 1,880 seperate article pages - call it 2,000. Q. How many of those highly active users would we need for it to be statistically likely that one had, at some point, edited each of our 970,000 articles? (5 marks. Show working)

Lots! I note, though, that I really do not consider myself a heavy editor. I consider myself a project person. I might even try and write a few full articles one day, rather than just filling in around the edges! I suspect Geni is of the same type, though I don't know. I'm afraid I don't know about you, either... While I recognise the validity of your question, I really don't think I am the person to select for this. Most of my articlespace edits are vandalism reverts anyway! -- Sam

Reply

Steve Bennett

13 Feb 13 Feb

12:17 a.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

On 2/12/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:

While I recognise the validity of your question, I really don't think I am the person to select for this. Most of my articlespace edits are vandalism reverts anyway!

In one of the articles recently cited I noticed a misleading statistic, that 50% of all edits were made by some fairly small (600?) number of editors. It's the problem of not having a smaller unit of change than "an edit". Bots, punctuation fixers, vandalism fixers etc all have massive numbers of edits, but it doesn't mean they're big "contributors". Again I call for more edit summary flags. A "reverting vandalism" flag would be nice. It's ironic in that vandal tool program that can't distinguish between vandalism and reverting vandalism - both appear as massive additions/deletions of text. Steve

Reply

Hermione1980

2:04 a.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

--- Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:

It's ironic in that vandal tool program that can't distinguish between vandalism and reverting vandalism - both appear as massive additions/deletions of text.

And it calls both "gibberish"! -Hermione1980 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Reply

Arwel Parry

12 Feb 12 Feb

7:05 p.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

In message <cbffa3750602120902ld447a0fm10afd3e0c4c8f0b4(a)mail.gmail.com>om>, Sam Korn <smoddy-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w(a)public.gmane.org> writes

On 2/12/06, geni <geniice-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w(a)public.gmane.org> wrote:

Sure. Pre the introduction of no anons creating articles you could roughly work out how much vandle fighting an admin was doing by their deletion rate. Someone posted a list of the number of admin actions had been done by each admin in the last month. About 200 admins racked up over 100 actions. Once you factor in all the admins who got their 100 by doing things other than vandalism (mine tend to come from WP:CP) you end up with less than 200. Factor in growth from then and you probably have around 200 admins vandle fighting.

Your statement fails to acknowledge that the admins who don't make 100 deletions in a month are still active and still are fighting vandalism. I don't delete 100 articles a month. I doubt I ever have, but I certainly used to be very active in combatting vandalism. You underestimate the good that many people doing a little can do. -- Sam

Indeed, I rarely delete anything, but I do dozens of reverts most days. -- Arwel Parry http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/

Reply

Gordon Joly

13 Feb 13 Feb

12:20 a.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

At 15:47 +0000 12/2/06, Sam Korn wrote:

On 2/12/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/12/06, Jon <thagudearbh(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

The Sunday Times (the most popular British Sunday broadsheet)

has done a hatchet job on Wikipedia pointing out that it is riddled by vandalism. After lampooning the fact that we have 1000 volunteers just to keep the vandalism at bay We don't. 500 tops.

Not all volunteers are administrators. -- Sam

Precisely: we can all fix vandalism! -- Gordo (aka LoopZilla) gordon.joly(a)pobox.com http://pobox.com/~gordo/ http://www.loopzilla.org/

Reply

Fastfission

3:12 a.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

On 2/12/06, Jon <thagudearbh(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Mind you, when WP has more people keeping the idiots at bay rather than writing content (as most likely is the case now), something has gone wrong.

Ah, but those aren't mutually exclusive in the slightest. I try to both keep idiots at bay AND write new content, as do many others on here! Adding, editing, and maintaining -- all in a day's wikiwork. FF

Reply

Jon

8:46 a.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

The Sun, Britain's biggest selling daily tabloid has also picked up on the story: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006070112,00.html Jon Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote: On 2/12/06, Jon wrote:

Mind you, when WP has more people keeping the idiots at bay rather than writing content (as most likely is the case now), something has gone wrong.

Ah, but those aren't mutually exclusive in the slightest. I try to both keep idiots at bay AND write new content, as do many others on here! Adding, editing, and maintaining -- all in a day's wikiwork. FF _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l --------------------------------- Yahoo! Photos NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo.

Reply

charles matthews

9:06 a.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

"Jon" wrote:

The Sun, Britain's biggest selling daily tabloid has also picked up on the story: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006070112,00.html

Got to hand it to them: the verbosity in the Sunday Times version has been scraped right off. Charles

Reply

Phil Boswell

12:58 p.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

"charles matthews" <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:004a01c63074$67ea0f50$99ac0656@NorthParade...

"Jon" wrote:

The Sun, Britain's biggest selling daily tabloid has also picked up on the story: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006070112,00.html

Got to hand it to them: the verbosity in the Sunday Times version has been scraped right off.

Yes. <div style="crusty old git">FWIW I manfully avoided clicking on the link titled "Lodge on for P3 Valentine: See beautiful babes with a phew of past" mostly because I wasn't quite certain whether it meant anything like what it looks like. I'm pretty certain all those words are English, but the sentence itself makes no sense. Is this some "young person thing?</div> -- Phil [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]

Reply

Sherool

12:19 p.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 08:46:22 +0100, Jon <thagudearbh(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

The Sun, Britain's biggest selling daily tabloid has also picked up on the story: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006070112,00.html

Slow news day I guess... Still waiting for someting like this: "For a whole 5 seconds the Wikipedia claimed that George W. Bush is in fact 'poop' yesterday, no comment from the White house so far, stay tuned for more shocking relevations". *rolleyes* -- [[User:Sherool]]

Reply

Gordon Joly

2:27 p.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

At 07:46 +0000 13/2/06, Jon wrote:

The Sun, Britain's biggest selling daily tabloid has also picked up on the story: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006070112,00.html

Let me get this straight: Max Clifford ate Beckham's hamster? -- Gordo (aka LoopZilla) gordon.joly(a)pobox.com http://pobox.com/~gordo/ http://www.loopzilla.org/

Reply

geni

14 Feb 14 Feb

12:20 a.m.

New subject: Wikipedia slated in the Sunday Times

On 2/13/06, Jon <thagudearbh(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

The Sun, Britain's biggest selling daily tabloid has also picked up on the story: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006070112,00.html Jon

This is what happens when we don't include enough pictures of [[Titmouse|Tits]] -- geni

Reply

MacGyverMagic/Mgm

11 Feb 11 Feb

5:42 p.m.

And prod or PWD isn't representative of the Wikipedia community either. It just happens to involve people who know it was tagged and have the energy to stay involved and ward off edit warriors. Mgm On 2/11/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/11/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Who /is/ representative of Wikipedia consensus on deletion?

No one -- which is why I object so strongly to the idea that deletion should be treated differently from other edits; or that deletion should be regarded as "final" because of an AFD, as if "the community" has decided that an article should be deleted. That is a farce. An AFD means that the people who happened to be looking at AFD at the time thought the article should be deleted. Those people can and do make mistakes, which is why those mistakes should be easily reversible. No edit on Wikipedia, including deletion, should be regarded as final or as having a mandate from some immutable process. There is no good reason to treat deletion differently than any other edit. Ryan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply

Philip Welch

11:24 p.m.

And prod or PWD isn't representative of the Wikipedia community either. It just happens to involve people who know it was tagged and have the energy to stay involved and ward off edit warriors.

As soon as the tag is removed the timer is reset. "Warding off edit warriors" is insufficient to make PROD work—in fact, any disputed deletion should operate like DFA and not like PROD. -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

Reply

Ryan Delaney

12 Feb 12 Feb

1:15 a.m.

On 2/11/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:

And prod or PWD isn't representative of the Wikipedia community either.

I agree absolutely. There is no process that is representative of community consensus and that is why there can be no edit* that should be treated as immutable or impossible to reverse, as AFD is treated. *possible exceptions could be admin deletions of illegal/defamatory content Ryan

Reply

SJ

11 Feb 11 Feb

10:25 a.m.

On 2/11/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Who /is/ representative of Wikipedia consensus on deletion?

Take a cross-section of {all editors, weighted by the (frequency * size) of their edits}, and ask them to reach a decision on keeping/deleting an article. That's what I would call representative of 'Wikipedia consensus' on its deletion. Discussion before polling/voting : good. In practice this not only better-informs participants, it weights the opinion of those who participiate in and follow a discussion more strongly than those who drop in for 30 seconds and leave a 3-word comment or vote. --SJ

Reply

Mark Gallagher

13 Feb 13 Feb

1:25 p.m.

G'day Alphax,

Who /is/ representative of Wikipedia consensus on deletion?

I am. In fact, I represent consensus on *all* controversial issues, from deletion of articles to the manual of style, to whether or not calling Bush a "tyrant" is NPOV, to what sort of tie helps Jimmy Wales look his best. I think you'll *all* find that a lot of issues would become a lot simpler if you'd just ask me ahead of time, and accept my rulings without question. After all, I *am* consensus (if you disagree, you'd best ask the person who represents consensus --- i.e., me --- who it is that truly represents consensus). Sooner or later someone will come along who'll agree to the above. I can wait ... -- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.6/257 - Release Date: 10/02/2006

Reply

John Lee

11 Feb 11 Feb

2:51 p.m.

Philip Welch wrote:

That's impossible--PROD can't handle contested deletions, only uncontested.

Any particular reason why?

All you need to stop PROD is one person to remove the tag. In a dispute, people would edit war over the PROD tag until finally settling down and having a consensus-finding discussion—i.e., engaging in the AfD process. This is why PROD is only a partial replacement. That said, we can reform AfD so that we don't launch headfirst into the voting (yes. VOTING) process and actually discuss our concerns first, with the help of an impartial admin-facilitator whose job is to carry out the ultimate decision. This sounds laborious but if PROD can handle most of the load we can spare the resources.

In other words, ala Discussions for Adminship (DFA)? Hell, yeah. Right now I often end up relisting debates because an article was substantially rewritten and so the bulk of the "votes" to delete/keep lack proper rationales. John Lee

Reply

6251

days inactive

6253

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

75 comments

29 participants

tags (0)

participants (29)

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
Andrew Gray
Arwel Parry
charles matthews
David Gerard
Fastfission
Gareth Hughes ([[User:Garzo]])
geni
Gordon Joly
Guy Chapman
Hermione1980
jayjg
Jesse W
John Lee
Jon
Justin Cormack
Keith Old
MacGyverMagic/Mgm
Mark Gallagher
Phil Boswell
Philip Welch
Ryan Delaney
Sam Korn
Sherool
SJ
SP
STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA
Stephen Bain
Steve Bennett