MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
I don't care about the number of votes. If an expert can assert it meets notability criteria it should be kept. We should try to get such criteria for as many types of articles as possible.
Tell the people on AFD. (And I dare you to quote actual policy.) They seriously argue that a consensus of the admittedly ignorant on a subject beats a dissenting actual no-foolin' expert.
- d.
On 10/26/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
I don't care about the number of votes. If an expert can assert it meets notability criteria it should be kept. We should try to get such criteria for as many types of articles as possible.
Tell the people on AFD. (And I dare you to quote actual policy.) They seriously argue that a consensus of the admittedly ignorant on a subject beats a dissenting actual no-foolin' expert.
If an actual no-foolin' expert dissents, then there isn't consensus in the first place.
On 10/26/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
If an actual no-foolin' expert dissents, then there isn't consensus in the first place.
And if an actual no-foolin' expert supports the consensus?
-- geni
On 10/26/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/26/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
If an actual no-foolin' expert dissents, then there isn't consensus in
the
first place.
And if an actual no-foolin' expert supports the consensus?
Supports what consensus? I just said, if people can't come to a general agreement, then there *is* no consensus. You seem to be mistaking majority with consensus.
On 10/26/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
Supports what consensus? I just said, if people can't come to a general agreement, then there *is* no consensus. You seem to be mistaking majority with consensus.
General aggreement isn't going to happen any more on anything. As such in order to get things done we have to shift over to super majority. If you don't like this go and join a smaller project.
-- geni
On Oct 26, 2005, at 7:18 PM, geni wrote:
General aggreement isn't going to happen any more on anything. As such in order to get things done we have to shift over to super majority. If you don't like this go and join a smaller project.
Your opinion, while interesting, is kind of notable for utterly contradicting what Jimbo has said repeatedly about the community, and the fact that we are not a democracy.
-Snowspinner
On 10/27/05, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Your opinion, while interesting, is kind of notable for utterly contradicting what Jimbo has said repeatedly about the community, and the fact that we are not a democracy.
-Snowspinner
I try to be a realist. The current size of the project means that we know have people or even groups of people who will never agree on anything ever. The time needed to carry out the length of debate needed to get anything close to consensus is now so long that if we want a result withing a decade we have to use supermajority rather than consensus. No amout of jumping up and down saying wikipedia is not a democracy is going to change that.
Fortunetly when it comes to individual articles the number of people involved is small enough that consensus is still posible in a large number of cases.
-- geni
On Oct 26, 2005, at 7:31 PM, geni wrote:
I try to be a realist. The current size of the project means that we know have people or even groups of people who will never agree on anything ever. The time needed to carry out the length of debate needed to get anything close to consensus is now so long that if we want a result withing a decade we have to use supermajority rather than consensus. No amout of jumping up and down saying wikipedia is not a democracy is going to change that.
And no amount of cataloging the difficulties of consensus-building is going to make Wikipedia a democracy.
I'm delivering a paper tomorrow (One that I'll probably also submit to Wikimania) on a related issue here, though, and I don't think it's number of people that determines whether an issue can be settled or not. I think it's that we have a very, very concrete epistemology for article content. What I mean is that NPOV, verifiability, NOR, and the like make it so anyone, expert or no, can evaluate an article's quality. Consensus works because we're all working from the same page.
The epistemology for deletion debates is far from set, though. And the epistemology for policy decisions at large are totally unset. We have a few Foundation issues, but for the most part, there's room for totally different interpretations of what the project is. And as long as that's true, there's no way we're going to reliably obtain agreement of any sort.
Which is mostly a plea for the Foundation to "lay the smack down" as it were.
-Snowspinner
geni wrote:
On 10/27/05, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Your opinion, while interesting, is kind of notable for utterly contradicting what Jimbo has said repeatedly about the community, and the fact that we are not a democracy.
-Snowspinner
I try to be a realist. The current size of the project means that we know have people or even groups of people who will never agree on anything ever. The time needed to carry out the length of debate needed to get anything close to consensus is now so long that if we want a result withing a decade we have to use supermajority rather than consensus. No amout of jumping up and down saying wikipedia is not a democracy is going to change that.
Fortunetly when it comes to individual articles the number of people involved is small enough that consensus is still posible in a large number of cases.
By presuming that there can be no easy agreement you don't give it a chance to happen. If is takes a little longer that's far more acceptable than the confrontational approach that has been prevailing lately. You would be surprised by the positive resultes you would get by showing a little good faith.
Ec
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
geni wrote:
General aggreement isn't going to happen any more on anything. As such in order to get things done we have to shift over to super majority. If you don't like this go and join a smaller project.
That, or we can just switch to pure wiki deletion, and work on getting consensus for edits without the bureaucracy; you know, the Wiki way. It baffles me that people think deletion should be treated differently from other kinds of edits- as if this particular kind of content dispute ought to be resolved by bureaucracy, rules, and votes, whereas others should be discusssed and mediated.
Ryan
On 10/27/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
That, or we can just switch to pure wiki deletion, and work on getting consensus for edits without the bureaucracy; you know, the Wiki way. It baffles me that people think deletion should be treated differently from other kinds of edits- as if this particular kind of content dispute ought to be resolved by bureaucracy, rules, and votes, whereas others should be discusssed and mediated.
Ryan
I do not want to get into more edit dissputes that last for months. Delete is different from other dissputes in that the result is rather binary (there is also the issue that if I started doing PWD on low profile articles it would be much harder to pick up.
-- geni
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
geni wrote:
Delete is different from other dissputes in that the result is rather binary (there is also the issue that if I started doing PWD on low profile articles it would be much harder to pick up.
I do not want to get into more edit dissputes that last for months.
Well, every edit is binary. Either it stays or it doesn't. Besides, an edit being binary doesn't offer up any connection to why it should be decided by rules and votes rather than discussion. Also, if you think PWD would lead to edit wars, how would you feel about an encyclopedia that anyone could edit: There would be edit wars galore and it would degenerate into chaos, neh? ;-)
Ryan
On 10/27/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
Well, every edit is binary. Either it stays or it doesn't. Besides, an edit being binary doesn't offer up any connection to why it should be decided by rules and votes rather than discussion.
Nothing to stop you useing discussion. It is psoible to find a form of wording that both sides find acceptable. This is not posible to do with deletion. Something is either deleted or it is not deleted.
Also, if you think
PWD would lead to edit wars, how would you feel about an encyclopedia that anyone could edit: There would be edit wars galore and it would degenerate into chaos, neh? ;-)
Ryan
You ever seen a long running edit conflic where neither side with compramise? I have. they generaly end in one side or the other implodeing. You know who wins such conflicts? Not the side that was right or even the side with more people on. No it is the side which has the greater wiki warfare skills. The ones who know how to play the politics and their oponents emotions. The ones who have no problem with fighting a battle for months at a time. The ones who know how to play the intensity of the conflict so as to maxism stress on thier oponent.
Do you really want deletion in the hands of these people? Other than a mild interest in which of our edit warriors would come out on top I can see nothing posertive about this aproach.
-- geni
You ever seen a long running edit conflic where neither side with compramise? I have. they generaly end in one side or the other implodeing. You know who wins such conflicts? Not the side that was right or even the side with more people on. No it is the side which has the greater wiki warfare skills. The ones who know how to play the politics and their oponents emotions. The ones who have no problem with fighting a battle for months at a time. The ones who know how to play the intensity of the conflict so as to maxism stress on thier oponent.
That is a completely made up scenario. Edit wars last because the status quo remain unchanged. When page blankings become the new deletion system, it becomes easier to resolve the standstill.
Most articles nominated for deletion are about something that the nominator didn't think was "notable." But the nominator is usually not an expert on the subject and usually has added anything to the article. The article is also usually very small. Since most people think it is a complete waste of time (I'm guessing here) to edit an article that will be deleted, they will refrain from it. The only reason to edit the article is if you think that your edits will make it so that the article will not be deleted. But it is much more effective to ARGUE on the AFD page why you think that the article should be kept. It is also more convenient to write something like "Keep. This person has been on the cover of a magazine see [bla bla]" than to write the same thing in a Wikipedia article.
That's why sane editors avoid AFD - it turns productive work into pointless arguing. Not so with page blanking as deletion. Why? Mostly because those who would vote Keep can instead add their arguments as facts to the article without threat of it being completely erased. A Keep vote becomes productive work.
As a side note, I think with page blanking as deletion, many more articles would be deleted from Wikipedia. But that is not such a big deal since mistakes can be rectified. Someone who votes delete only has to look at the article in its current version and decide for him or herself whether he or she thinks it merits for inclusion in Wikipedia or not. Someone who votes keep has to go through the page history and decide that any revision, despite that someone has voted delete on it, should not be excluded from Wikipedia.
-- mvh Björn
Bjorn,
My experience is the opposite. I frequently edit pages nominated for deletion explaining their notability, expanding them, cleaning them up and provided sources.
Saving such articles on "Articles for Deletion" and noting you have made done so is by far the most effective method of ensuring the retention of an article. If a majority of people have voted to delete it based on the original substandard article, I leave messages on their talk page advising them that the article has been changed and asking them politely to have a fresh look at the article.
The outcome of doing this has always been that the article has been retained in much better shape. People vote to delete articles generally because the article has problems with verification, notability and presentation.
Fixing these problems changes their mind about the merits of an article.
Regards.
Keith
Keith User:Capitalistroadster
On 10/27/05, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
You ever seen a long running edit conflic where neither side with compramise? I have. they generaly end in one side or the other implodeing. You know who wins such conflicts? Not the side that was right or even the side with more people on. No it is the side which has the greater wiki warfare skills. The ones who know how to play the politics and their oponents emotions. The ones who have no problem with fighting a battle for months at a time. The ones who know how to play the intensity of the conflict so as to maxism stress on thier oponent.
That is a completely made up scenario. Edit wars last because the status quo remain unchanged. When page blankings become the new deletion system, it becomes easier to resolve the standstill.
Most articles nominated for deletion are about something that the nominator didn't think was "notable." But the nominator is usually not an expert on the subject and usually has added anything to the article. The article is also usually very small. Since most people think it is a complete waste of time (I'm guessing here) to edit an article that will be deleted, they will refrain from it. The only reason to edit the article is if you think that your edits will make it so that the article will not be deleted. But it is much more effective to ARGUE on the AFD page why you think that the article should be kept. It is also more convenient to write something like "Keep. This person has been on the cover of a magazine see [bla bla]" than to write the same thing in a Wikipedia article.
That's why sane editors avoid AFD - it turns productive work into pointless arguing. Not so with page blanking as deletion. Why? Mostly because those who would vote Keep can instead add their arguments as facts to the article without threat of it being completely erased. A Keep vote becomes productive work.
As a side note, I think with page blanking as deletion, many more articles would be deleted from Wikipedia. But that is not such a big deal since mistakes can be rectified. Someone who votes delete only has to look at the article in its current version and decide for him or herself whether he or she thinks it merits for inclusion in Wikipedia or not. Someone who votes keep has to go through the page history and decide that any revision, despite that someone has voted delete on it, should not be excluded from Wikipedia.
-- mvh Björn _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
My experience is the opposite. I frequently edit pages nominated for deletion explaining their notability, expanding them, cleaning them up and provided sources.
Saving such articles on "Articles for Deletion" and noting you have made done so is by far the most effective method of ensuring the retention of an article. If a majority of people have voted to delete it based on the original substandard article, I leave messages on their talk page advising them that the article has been changed and asking them politely to have a fresh look at the article.
I've tried that too, but it didn't work for me. However, I forgot the part about leaving messages on the delete-voters talk pages. Also it has happened once that a major edit I did on a VFD:ed page was reverted because with my edit the vfd-nomination wouldn't be valid anymore. :) Instead I was supposed to wait until the page got deleted and then insert my new text.
In my experience I have found it hard to change someones vote. You either use the confrontational method "People who vote delete on this are morons, it obviously is notable. Check the 999000 google hits [www.google.com]" or the more consolidating "Maybe this article should be kept? It gets 999000 google hits." But people generally have a tendancy to not want to be proven wrong... Your experience most definitely has been different.
You also have very little time (4 or 5 days now?) to save the article. Many times I have skimmed through VFD:ed articles and thought that I definitely should "save" the article. But I can't with such a short time, and not with the threat of my effort going to waste.
-- mvh Björn
On 10/27/05, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
That's why sane editors avoid AFD - it turns productive work into pointless arguing. Not so with page blanking as deletion. Why? Mostly because those who would vote Keep can instead add their arguments as facts to the article without threat of it being completely erased. A Keep vote becomes productive work.
Except of course the article might as well be erased.
-- geni
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
geni wrote:
Do you really want deletion in the hands of these people? Other than a mild interest in which of our edit warriors would come out on top I can see nothing posertive about this aproach.
It sounds to me like you just don't believe in the idea of a Wiki in general. I could make the exact same argument against letting anyone edit the article; the more persistent edit warrior always wins, so what's the point? If that's your view, we can't even have a discussion about this. But it makes me wonder why you are involved with Wikipedia at all. :\
Ryan
On 10/27/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
It sounds to me like you just don't believe in the idea of a Wiki in general. I could make the exact same argument against letting anyone edit the article; the more persistent edit warrior always wins, so what's the point?
Because you can negotate on text. There are more than two posible outcomes which means it is posible to come up with an alturnartive that is vaugely aceptable to both sides. This is not posible if someone want to delete the article
If that's your view, we can't even have a discussion about this. But it makes me wonder why you are involved with Wikipedia at all. :\
Ryan
We protect articles all the time thus technicaly pure wiki editing has already failed. -- geni
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Ryan Delaney wrote:
geni wrote:
Delete is different from other dissputes in that the result is rather binary (there is also the issue that if I started doing PWD on low profile articles it would be much harder to pick up.
I do not want to get into more edit dissputes that last for months.
Well, every edit is binary. Either it stays or it doesn't.
I have to disagree. There is such a thing as compromise.
However, the thickhead edit warriors are convinced that they are RIGHT and everyone else is WRONG.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 10/27/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
However, the thickhead edit warriors are convinced that they are RIGHT and everyone else is WRONG.
Alphax
however such editors have a strong emotional atachment to what they are doing and as a result are fairly easy for skilled edit warriors to deal with.
-- geni
On 10/26/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/26/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
Supports what consensus? I just said, if people can't come to a general agreement, then there *is* no consensus. You seem to be mistaking
majority
with consensus.
General aggreement isn't going to happen any more on anything. As such in order to get things done we have to shift over to super majority. If you don't like this go and join a smaller project.
-- geni
Like I said, I can come to accept it if the process is changed from consensus to majority rule. If you think Wikipedia should drop consensus as a goal, by all means make that argument. What I don't accept is redefining the term consensus to mean majority rule. Anthony
On 10/27/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
Like I said, I can come to accept it if the process is changed from consensus to majority rule. If you think Wikipedia should drop consensus as a goal, by all means make that argument.
I don't think it should be droped as a goal but I do think we should be realistic enough to accept that in certian areas it isn't going to happen.
What I don't accept is redefining the term consensus to mean majority rule. Anthony
And destory all the hard work on the wikipedia newspeak project?
-- geni
On 10/27/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/27/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
Like I said, I can come to accept it if the process is changed from consensus to majority rule. If you think Wikipedia should drop consensus
as
a goal, by all means make that argument.
I don't think it should be droped as a goal but I do think we should be realistic enough to accept that in certian areas it isn't going to happen.
I actually think a consensus approach toward deletion would be more efficient. It is essentially the approach used for speedy deletion, and a lot less time is wasted on speedy deletion. The problem with VFD is that individual articles are considered one at a time rather than considering the base questions and coming to agreement on that first. If we adopted a deletion standard, via consensus, saying what factors should be considered with regard to say a Webcomic, then a simple majority rules vote on whether or not a particular Webcomic fits those standards would be simple and efficient. Furthermore, if we want simply a majority rules system, then there are more efficient ways to do this as well. I proposed a representative system, for instance, so that not all Wikipedians have to monitor the process constantly, but they can elect representatives to vote for them. The representative could be chosen proportionally, so that all the different opinions could be represented. This alone would save tons of time, and it'd more fairly represent the opinions of everyone, as well. But as long as we delude ourselves into believe that our current system represents a consensus, things like this will be thrown out, because "Wikipedia isn't a democracy."
What I don't accept is redefining
the term consensus to mean majority rule. Anthony
And destory all the hard work on the wikipedia newspeak project?
-- geni
The answer for AfD:
Get rid of it. Allow anyone to delete articles. Anyone who tries to create an article or clicks on a link to a deleted article will get the notification that previously deleted entries exist (the message that admins get for deleted articles). Allow anyone to view and restore those edits.
That is, because deletion is now non-destructive (i.e., reversible), there's no need to restrict the power -- or the power to restore. The rules about edit wars and reversions apply as normal.
Only exception: copyright infringement/illegal content. Those go through the AfD process, are hard-deleted. That's it.
On 10/27/05, The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com wrote:
The answer for AfD:
Get rid of it. Allow anyone to delete articles. Anyone who tries to create an article or clicks on a link to a deleted article will get the notification that previously deleted entries exist (the message that admins get for deleted articles). Allow anyone to view and restore those edits.
That is, because deletion is now non-destructive (i.e., reversible), there's no need to restrict the power -- or the power to restore. The rules about edit wars and reversions apply as normal.
The rules about edit wars don't work very well (and since when was image deletion reversible?). I'm sure you can find all the other objections to pure wiki deletion if you look around a bit.
Only exception: copyright infringement/illegal content. Those go through the AfD process, are hard-deleted. That's it.
If we are going to have to start takeing copyvios through AFD we are in real trouble
-- geni
On 10/27/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/27/05, The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com wrote:
The answer for AfD:
Get rid of it. Allow anyone to delete articles. Anyone who tries to create an article or clicks on a link to a deleted article will get the notification that previously deleted entries exist (the message that admins get for deleted articles). Allow anyone to view and restore those edits.
That is, because deletion is now non-destructive (i.e., reversible), there's no need to restrict the power -- or the power to restore. The rules about edit wars and reversions apply as normal.
Allowing anyone to delete articles will encourage deletion wars and doesn't help at all to establish discussion let alone concensus. --Mgm
On 10/27/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Allowing anyone to delete articles will encourage deletion wars and doesn't help at all to establish discussion let alone concensus. --Mgm
Why is it that we don't have deletion wars among admins? You can argue it's because admins are better than that, or you can argue that it's because admins know they'd be deadminned if they did such a thing. But either argument could apply to any editor. We don't have to allow editors to get into deletion wars. Personally I don't think it makes a difference whether or not non-admins can delete articles, though. In my opinion the important thing is that non-admins can view articles which have been deleted via the VFD process.
On 10/27/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/27/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Allowing anyone to delete articles will encourage deletion wars and doesn't help at all to establish discussion let alone concensus. --Mgm
Why is it that we don't have deletion wars among admins?
We do.
You can argue it's because admins are better than that, or you can argue that it's because admins know they'd be deadminned if they did such a thing. But either argument could apply to any editor. We don't have to allow editors to get into deletion wars.
The reason they are rare is there are fairly strong rules in place over what an admin can delete and when. -- geni
On 10/27/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/27/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/27/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Allowing anyone to delete articles will encourage deletion wars and doesn't help at all to establish discussion let alone concensus. --Mgm
Why is it that we don't have deletion wars among admins?
We do.
You can argue it's because admins are better than that, or you can argue that it's because admins know they'd be deadminned if they did such a thing. But either argument could apply to any editor. We don't have to allow editors to
get
into deletion wars.
The reason they are rare is there are fairly strong rules in place over what an admin can delete and when. -- geni
That's why I don't really understand the purpose of letting all users delete. I'm not opposed to it, and don't see the disadvantage, but I don't see why it's an advantage either. Really I think the best solution would be to get rid of Articles for Deletion and replace it with...nothing. Pure trash which can't be fixed can be speedily deleted. Anything else can be turned into a short factual article or a redirect. Anthony
That's why I don't really understand the purpose of letting all users delete. I'm not opposed to it, and don't see the disadvantage, but I don't see why it's an advantage either. Really I think the best solution would be to get rid of Articles for Deletion and replace it with...nothing. Pure trash which can't be fixed can be speedily deleted. Anything else can be turned into a short factual article or a redirect. Anthony
Geni was right. Deletion wars are rare because there's clear policy on it and admins are trusted members of the community who with a few occasional exceptions follow these rules.
If we were to get rid of AFD, the creator of a crappy article could repeatedly undelete it. If we were to address how people handle AFD, they might actually learn why the article wasn't a good idea to start with. PWD would call for page protection to stop the recreation, creating loads of needless protected pages and less discussion about something people should really talk about.
--Mgm
On 10/27/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
That's why I don't really understand the purpose of letting all users delete. I'm not opposed to it, and don't see the disadvantage, but I
don't
see why it's an advantage either. Really I think the best solution would be to get rid of Articles for Deletion and replace it with...nothing. Pure trash which can't be fixed
can
be speedily deleted. Anything else can be turned into a short factual article or a redirect. Anthony
Geni was right. Deletion wars are rare because there's clear policy on it and admins are trusted members of the community who with a few occasional exceptions follow these rules.
Right, but it has little to do with the fact that only admins can delete articles. You can get rid of AfD, give anyone the ability to delete an article, and still have a clear policy on deletion and undeletion.
If we were to get rid of AFD, the creator of a crappy article could
repeatedly undelete it.
As opposed to repeatedly creating it? I don't see the barrier there.
If we were to address how people handle AFD,
they might actually learn why the article wasn't a good idea to start with.
That assumes that deleting a crappy article is the right solution. I'd say making a crappy article not crappy any more is a better solution.
PWD would call for page protection to stop the recreation,
creating loads of needless protected pages and less discussion about something people should really talk about.
We already have loads of needless protected pages. This has nothing to do with whether or not non-admins can delete. Non-admins already can undelete, in fact, people who aren't even logged in can already undelete.
Page protection isn't the only solution against vandalism. In fact, it's usually not even the best solution.
Right, but it has little to do with the fact that only admins can delete articles. You can get rid of AfD, give anyone the ability to delete an article, and still have a clear policy on deletion and undeletion.
By the way, we *don't* have a very clear policy on deletion and undeletion.
On 10/28/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
Right, but it has little to do with the fact that only admins can delete articles. You can get rid of AfD, give anyone the ability to delete an article, and still have a clear policy on deletion and undeletion.
By the way, we *don't* have a very clear policy on deletion and undeletion.
We do. People just choose to ignore it.
--Mgm
On Oct 28, 2005, at 12:49 AM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 10/28/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
Right, but it has little to do with the fact that only admins can delete articles. You can get rid of AfD, give anyone the ability to delete an article, and still have a clear policy on deletion and undeletion.
By the way, we *don't* have a very clear policy on deletion and undeletion.
We do. People just choose to ignore it.
Now if only we could all agree on which people.
-Phil
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Snowspinner wrote:
On Oct 28, 2005, at 12:49 AM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 10/28/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
Right, but it has little to do with the fact that only admins can delete articles. You can get rid of AfD, give anyone the ability to delete an article, and still have a clear policy on deletion and undeletion.
By the way, we *don't* have a very clear policy on deletion and undeletion.
We do. People just choose to ignore it.
Now if only we could all agree on which people.
Agreeing that the policy exists would be a good start.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 10/28/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
By the way, we *don't* have a very clear policy on deletion and
undeletion.
We do. People just choose to ignore it.
--Mgm
Do you care to explain where this clear policy is?
"Each deletion category has a slightly different procedure. See the page for that category for details. *Give the reason why you think it should be deleted*. It will remain there for a time, giving other users the chance to comment on whether they think deletion is in fact appropriate. After an appropriate lag time, an administrator will delete the page if a rough consensus is reached - see Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough_consensushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus." Going to that page:
"Administrators necessarily must use their best judgement, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached. For example, administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faithhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_faith. Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppetshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppet, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article.
Some opinions can override all others. For instance if someone finds a copyright violation, a page is always deleted. If a page was to be deleted, but a person finds references for a particular topic or rewrites the article, the page might be kept. If the consensus so far was to delete, but it is requested that a page be userfied, then typically the page will be moved into the user namespace." That doesn't seem very clear to me at all. Undeletion policy is somewhat more clear, although with the new speedy deletion criteria there is quite a bit of ambiguity as to what constitutes being "speedily deleted out-of-process". Of course, even undeletion policy has the huge loophole of saying that "If, after five days have passed, at least 3 people (including the person who proposed it) currently want to undelete and a majority are currently in favor of undeletion, the page *may* be undeleted by a sysop." Emphasis is in the original, and trust me, there are many admins that like to point out that loophole.
So, unless you mean that the deletion and undeletion policies are clear that admins can do basically anything they want, then no, the policies aren't clear. Somewhat of a de-facto unwritten policy has emerged, but that's about it.
On 10/27/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
By the way, we *don't* have a very clear policy on deletion and undeletion.
From the POV of adminship action we do. It is very hard to come up
with a situation where both sides in an admin vs admin deletion war can make a halfway legit case under the rules
-- geni
On 10/28/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/27/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
By the way, we *don't* have a very clear policy on deletion and
undeletion.
From the POV of adminship action we do. It is very hard to come up
with a situation where both sides in an admin vs admin deletion war can make a halfway legit case under the rules
-- geni
I think this has much more to do with the fact that admin vs admin deletion wars are highly frowned upon and therefore rare. Tying this back to the concept of pure wiki deletion, there can still be clear policy on deletion and undeletion under it, and delete wars can still be prohibited.
Anthony
On 10/28/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
I think this has much more to do with the fact that admin vs admin deletion wars are highly frowned upon and therefore rare. Tying this back to the concept of pure wiki deletion, there can still be clear policy on deletion and undeletion under it, and delete wars can still be prohibited.
Anthony
Revert wars are prohibited. Here is the list of ones where the revert warriours were unskilled.
[[WP:AN/3RR]]
-- geni
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I think this has much more to do with the fact that admin vs admin deletion
wars are highly frowned upon and therefore rare. Tying this back to the concept of pure wiki deletion, there can still be clear policy on deletion and undeletion under it, and delete wars can still be prohibited.
Anthony
Yeah, absolutely. Pure wiki deletion doesn't mean "delete whatever you feel like should be deleted". The criteria for deletion would be no different. The only difference is the mechanism by which stuff gets deleted.
Ryan
geni wrote:
On 10/26/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
Supports what consensus? I just said, if people can't come to a general agreement, then there *is* no consensus. You seem to be mistaking majority with consensus.
General aggreement isn't going to happen any more on anything. As such in order to get things done we have to shift over to super majority. If you don't like this go and join a smaller project.
That sounds like a deletionist manifesto.
That seems characteristic of the gang of punks that has been dominating the deletion process. These fanatics are so obsessed with pushing their POV through deletions that they have completely lost touch with anything constructive or creative.
I'm also disappointed in those who are in a position to act against this clique that just whine and do nothing. Sometimes it takes a little courage to deal with these disruptive influences. Even if a large proportion of these articles deserves be deleted that doesn't justify the inflexible attitude about all the deletions.
If they can't make some effort to reach compromises with others who do suggest alternatives for problem articles then maybe they should go troll somewher else.
Getting pissed off with the incessent complaints, Ec
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Ray Saintonge wrote:
geni wrote:
On 10/26/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
Supports what consensus? I just said, if people can't come to a general agreement, then there *is* no consensus. You seem to be mistaking majority with consensus.
General aggreement isn't going to happen any more on anything. As such in order to get things done we have to shift over to super majority. If you don't like this go and join a smaller project.
That sounds like a deletionist manifesto.
That seems characteristic of the gang of punks that has been dominating the deletion process. These fanatics are so obsessed with pushing their POV through deletions that they have completely lost touch with anything constructive or creative. I'm also disappointed in those who are in a position to act against this clique that just whine and do nothing. Sometimes it takes a little courage to deal with these disruptive influences. Even if a large proportion of these articles deserves be deleted that doesn't justify the inflexible attitude about all the deletions.
If they can't make some effort to reach compromises with others who do suggest alternatives for problem articles then maybe they should go troll somewher else.
People DO NOT seem to understand that there are other options to "keep, notable" and "delete, cruft".
Here's the (full?) range of options: - Transwiki to (some other GFDL wiki, not neccesarily run by Wikimedia) - Merge with another article (as Gmaxwell suggests, do NOT use history merges - use history subpages) and: - Redirect, OR - Delete the original article with a nonsense title - Redirect to another article - Move to a better page name - Translate (note, untranslated pages which have remained so for the specified time can be deleted) - Slated for cleanup - Kept - BJAODN'ed - Speedied - Deleted
That's the full range. Before you vote "d, nn." you should ask yourself: just what other options are there? What would be the best way to proceed? What will cause the least stress, pain and gnashing of teeth?
I've found that the criteria for speedy deletion are quite useful in some of these cases; for example, copyvios with minimal wikification (esp. linking) which are detected within 48 hours can be speedied under section A8; biographies which make no claim at notability can be speedied under A7; stuff which has been AFDed and recreated can be speedied under G4; and so on.
The bottom line is: don't waste yours and everyone else's time voting "d, nn. US President" or "keep, we need articles on my nose hairs" when there are *other, better* options available.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
"Anthony DiPierro" wrote: On 10/26/05, David Gerard wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
I don't care about the number of votes. If an expert can assert it meets notability criteria it should be kept. We should try to get such criteria for as many types of articles as possible.
Tell the people on AFD. (And I dare you to quote actual policy.) They seriously argue that a consensus of the admittedly ignorant on a subject beats a dissenting actual no-foolin' expert.
If an actual no-foolin' expert dissents, then there isn't consensus in the first place.
You appear to have misunderstood the working definition of "consensus" employed on AFD...YHL HAND