I agree with Phil's observation, but it's not just the [[profanity|****]] deletionists that are to blame. There are honestly too many people so hungry for attention that they continuously seek to make Wikipedia aware of their unnotability. These characters are an undesired effect of being completely open, and cause pollution of good material with their own vanity. It is them we should blame to a large degree for our failure to distinguish between bona fide and shockingly unnotable.
When it comes to webcomics, it is extremely hard (for a non-insider) to make a judgment between notable and non-notable, which is exactly the point in having guidelines. I know this is elitist, but in these matters an uninformed opinion is a potentially destructive one.
Jfdwolff
That's honestly only part of the problem, though. The other problem is that the gudelines we have are crappy. Which is a helpful warning against instruction creep - your old instructions are likely to stick around and bite people in the ass long after their time has passed.
-Snowspinner
On Sep 5, 2005, at 8:03 PM, J.F. de Wolff wrote:
I agree with Phil's observation, but it's not just the [[profanity| ****]] deletionists that are to blame. There are honestly too many people so hungry for attention that they continuously seek to make Wikipedia aware of their unnotability. These characters are an undesired effect of being completely open, and cause pollution of good material with their own vanity. It is them we should blame to a large degree for our failure to distinguish between bona fide and shockingly unnotable.
When it comes to webcomics, it is extremely hard (for a non- insider) to make a judgment between notable and non-notable, which is exactly the point in having guidelines. I know this is elitist, but in these matters an uninformed opinion is a potentially destructive one.
Jfdwolff
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/89 - Release Date: 02/09/2005
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/5/05, J.F. de Wolff jfdwolff@doctors.org.uk wrote:
I agree with Phil's observation, but it's not just the [[profanity|****]] deletionists that are to blame. There are honestly too many people so hungry for attention that they continuously seek to make Wikipedia aware of their unnotability. These characters are an undesired effect of being completely open, and cause pollution of good material with their own vanity. It is them we should blame to a large degree for our failure to distinguish between bona fide and shockingly unnotable.
When it comes to webcomics, it is extremely hard (for a non-insider) to make a judgment between notable and non-notable, which is exactly the point in having guidelines. I know this is elitist, but in these matters an uninformed opinion is a potentially destructive one.
Jfdwolff
I agree that we have a very difficult problem with VfD/AfD. The current culture is of war, not tolerance. I think it is because the deletion forums (and deletion forum policy discussions) are populated (and some might say dominated) by many the same people who are our best workers in the fight against vandals.
Far too often the case is "people write about what they care about; VfD voters vote against what they don't care about".
There are several article drafts that I just haven't bothered to write in this toxic environment.
J.F. de Wolff wrote:
I agree with Phil's observation, but it's not just the [[profanity|****]] deletionists that are to blame. There are honestly too many people so hungry for attention that they continuously seek to make Wikipedia aware of their unnotability. These characters are an undesired effect of being completely open, and cause pollution of good material with their own vanity. It is them we should blame to a large degree for our failure to distinguish between bona fide and shockingly unnotable.
When it comes to webcomics, it is extremely hard (for a non-insider) to make a judgment between notable and non-notable, which is exactly the point in having guidelines. I know this is elitist, but in these matters an uninformed opinion is a potentially destructive one.
Don't forget, we only deleted the articles *about* the comics, not the comics themselves...
People (especially those who frequent a particularly evil site which I won't name, but whose community has created their own particularly unfunny wiki - people on #wikipedia, you might know who I mean) often fail to see this fact, saying "don't delete my pride and joy! this thing really exists! save my baby" - and yet they fail to realise the key issue at stake:
Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia.
Wikipedia is *not* the internet. You can't put whatever you want to on it. We have guidlines. We have standards. We don't include every single piece of fancruft minutae about everything (although sometimes I wonder about that). We are not the place to advertise your newest book/TV show/movie/religion/invention, or yourself.
Wikipedia stores articles about things. It does not store the things themselves. If something has become notable outside of whatever community associated with it (unless that community is sufficiently large), it is possibly deserving of an article about it.
If, however, you decide "I want people to love me! I will go make a website about $(randomtopic) and write about it on Wikipedia!", you are sore out of luck.
Wikipedia does not exist to inflate your precious little ego.
I am a member of the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist.
When someone says on VFD/AFD/Whatever it's called now "non-notable", they mean:
"The subject of this particular article is not notable outside of it's own community to warrant an article of its own."
Now if the webcomics community feels wronged by the Wikipedia community, I am sorry. But we cannot help it if we find an article on our encyclopedia which fails our notability guidlines. It is not the job of Wikipedia, *and never will be*, to make things notable.
We are here to document the state of things, nothing more. That is the essence of NPOV, the policy which (along with Freedom of content) Wikipedia is founded upon.
On Sep 6, 2005, at 5:21 AM, Alphax wrote:
Now if the webcomics community feels wronged by the Wikipedia community, I am sorry. But we cannot help it if we find an article on our encyclopedia which fails our notability guidlines. It is not the job of Wikipedia, *and never will be*, to make things notable.
Which notability guidelines are these? The terrible webcomic ones that I outlined the problems of? Or the ones at [[WP:NOT]] where it says there are "no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page?"
I mean, we're not talking about someone's garage band with a single self-released EP here. Articles are getting deleted that are verifiable articles on webcomics with substantial readerships. Elf Only Inn was picked up by the biggest webcomic syndicate online. Deleted.
And what on Earth does it mean to be notable outside its community? For a webcomic to be notable outside its own fans? Outside of webcomics fans in general? We're willing to have an article on each individual Simpsons episode (Explicitly - it's on the meta page "Wikipedia is not paper"). Are these notable outside of Simpsons fans? Or is the judgment that Simpsons fandom is somehow more notable than webcomics fandom? And if so, who's making that judgment?
-Snowspinner
Deletionist simpson fans.
Jack (Sam Spade)
And what on Earth does it mean to be notable outside its community? For a webcomic to be notable outside its own fans? Outside of webcomics fans in general? We're willing to have an article on each individual Simpsons episode (Explicitly - it's on the meta page "Wikipedia is not paper"). Are these notable outside of Simpsons fans? Or is the judgment that Simpsons fandom is somehow more notable than webcomics fandom? And if so, who's making that judgment?
-Snowspinner
Snowspinner wrote:
On Sep 6, 2005, at 5:21 AM, Alphax wrote:
Now if the webcomics community feels wronged by the Wikipedia community, I am sorry. But we cannot help it if we find an article on our encyclopedia which fails our notability guidlines. It is not the job of Wikipedia, *and never will be*, to make things notable.
Which notability guidelines are these? The terrible webcomic ones that I outlined the problems of? Or the ones at [[WP:NOT]] where it says there are "no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page?"
Maybe you want to check [[WP:N]]. Just because something exists doesn't make it notable.
I mean, we're not talking about someone's garage band with a single self-released EP here. Articles are getting deleted that are verifiable articles on webcomics with substantial readerships. Elf Only Inn was picked up by the biggest webcomic syndicate online. Deleted.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Elf_Only_Inn, there are 13 deleted edits - you can restore them if you wish. Elf Only Inn is a webcomic that I would call notable, even back in April. Other webcomics, not so.
And what on Earth does it mean to be notable outside its community? For a webcomic to be notable outside its own fans? Outside of webcomics fans in general? We're willing to have an article on each individual Simpsons episode (Explicitly - it's on the meta page "Wikipedia is not paper"). Are these notable outside of Simpsons fans? Or is the judgment that Simpsons fandom is somehow more notable than webcomics fandom? And if so, who's making that judgment?
It means "Just because fans of a particular (whatever) love this thing to bits, doesn't mean we should have an article on it". There are video games that are notable in their own right, and the storylines of those video games are very notable amongst the fan community, but that doesn't mean that we need articles on any of the events or characters from said storylines.
On 9/6/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe you want to check [[WP:N]]. Just because something exists doesn't make it notable.
This is the same [[WP:N]] that starts with a big note that there is no Wikipedia policy on notability, right?
-Snowspinner
Phil Sandifer wrote:
On 9/6/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe you want to check [[WP:N]]. Just because something exists doesn't make it notable.
This is the same [[WP:N]] that starts with a big note that there is no Wikipedia policy on notability, right?
As you can see from what you quoted, I never said it was a policy. You asked for guidlines, so I provided you with one, official or not.
As for your love of [[Elf Only Inn]], I see that (as of 11:00 UTC, 7th September 2005]] you have made a grand total of ZERO edits to that article. Stop bitching about the fact that an article was deleted, and expand the thing.
Alphax wrote:
As you can see from what you quoted, I never said it was a policy. You asked for guidlines, so I provided you with one, official or not.
As for your love of [[Elf Only Inn]], I see that (as of 11:00 UTC, 7th September 2005]] you have made a grand total of ZERO edits to that article. Stop bitching about the fact that an article was deleted, and expand the thing.
While we're talking about policies and guielines, would you say that [[WP:CIVIL]] applies to the mailing list, or is this a free for all...? ;-)
- Ryan
Ryan Delaney wrote:
Alphax wrote:
As you can see from what you quoted, I never said it was a policy. You asked for guidlines, so I provided you with one, official or not.
As for your love of [[Elf Only Inn]], I see that (as of 11:00 UTC, 7th September 2005]] you have made a grand total of ZERO edits to that article. Stop bitching about the fact that an article was deleted, and expand the thing.
While we're talking about policies and guielines, would you say that [[WP:CIVIL]] applies to the mailing list, or is this a free for all...? ;-)
Maybe I should just violate [[WP:NPA]] and call Snowspinner a... nah.
Snowspinner, I'm sorry that I harassed you, and that you feel so hurt by articles being deleted, but if people feel that something is not notable enough to belong in Wikipedia - and AFAICT, this is still a valid reason for voting to delete something (actually, I don't think you even *need* to provide a reason when voting) - then they will vote, "nn. webcomic, delete".
It is neither your job, nor mine, nor the purpose of Wikipedia to increase the "notability" of something. Wikipedia is pretty big on the internet, and we have (or used to have) standards which meant that Wikipedia was being used as a measure of notability of a topic elsewhere on the Internet, and in the wider media in general.
As it has been pointed out in another thread:
Fastfission wrote:
Well, recognizing that Wikipedia itself is becoming a cultural object, wouldn't it make sense at the very least to say "When it is more notable than its inclusion in Wikipedia would be"? ;-)
Put more simply, if I were in EB, it would be pretty amazing and the most notable thing about me ("Otherwise unnotable man included in Encyclopedia Brittanica," the headlines would proclaim). However if I was more notable than my inclusion into EB would be, then it wouldn't be any big deal if they had an article on me -- it might even be expected, if they specialized in breadth.
Of course, the problem with this is that it is self-reinforcing policy! That is, if the standard for inclusion to Wikipedia went down, then the likelihood of having a Wikipedia article about something would go up, which would in turn affect a standard for inclusion based on the likelihood of an article being in Wikipedia... and so on.
It's a slippery slope once we say abolish such meta-guidlines as notability and encyclopedic potential. Wikipedia is NOT a web directory, and for many articles (not all, but many nonetheless) on webcomics, that is all the article is being used for. As I said before:
Alphax wrote:
We are here to document the state of things, nothing more. That is the essence of NPOV, the policy which (along with Freedom of content) Wikipedia is founded upon.
To me, staying neutral means "we don't write about something until it is notable outside of the community it originated in", because otherwise we are pushing that communitie's POV that the subject of the article is notable outside of that community.
This thread is a very good argument for getting rid of VfD. The main thing I (and everyone I know who reads it) like about the wikipedia is the access to detailed information on absurdly obscure info. If someone searches for a web comic, it instantly becomes notable and encyclopedic. What are the deletionists thinking??? Wiki is not paper, and if you keep deleting, it won't be anything special as far as encyclopedias go, either.
Jack (Sam Spade)
Jack Lynch wrote:
This thread is a very good argument for getting rid of VfD. The main thing I (and everyone I know who reads it) like about the wikipedia is the access to detailed information on absurdly obscure info. If someone searches for a web comic, it instantly becomes notable and encyclopedic. What are the deletionists thinking??? Wiki is not paper, and if you keep deleting, it won't be anything special as far as encyclopedias go, either.
Amazingly, I'm in full agreement with Sam. :)
Just the other day I stumbled across an article on VfD for which the entire text of the justification given for its nomination was:
"NN, D"
I'm hardly a newbie, but even for me it took a few minutes to figure out that "NN" meant non-notable. I checked the edit history of the editor who'd made the nomination and found about a dozen identical VfDs for other articles made at the same time. I voted "keep" on every last one of them because in my opinion the _nominations themselves_ were not adequate. I didn't even bother reading the actual articles and for all I know based on the justification given the nominator hadn't read them either - he apparently didn't even bother to take the time to type out whole words. Got accused of violating WP:POINT, of course, but I completely stand by my actions.
How about a policy whereby VfDs that don't adequately explain why the nominator made it can be summarily deleted? If someone proposes deleting an article they should at least show that they put effort into determining whether deletion was warranted.
On 9/8/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
How about a policy whereby VfDs that don't adequately explain why the nominator made it can be summarily deleted? If someone proposes deleting an article they should at least show that they put effort into determining whether deletion was warranted.
That certainly sounds just, especially in regards to those sad little abbreviations. They don't really save much (if any) time and their only real purpose seems to be to confuse people who aren't in on the lingo or to make the nominator feel that they are part of some sort of special club. I say this of course as a proud academic. ;-)
(On some pages, such as IFD, they make sense, since what they mean is posted at the top of the page and most of the nominations are just procedural and uncontested).
FF
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Jack Lynch wrote:
This thread is a very good argument for getting rid of VfD. The main thing I (and everyone I know who reads it) like about the wikipedia is the access to detailed information on absurdly obscure info. If someone searches for a web comic, it instantly becomes notable and encyclopedic. What are the deletionists thinking??? Wiki is not paper, and if you keep deleting, it won't be anything special as far as encyclopedias go, either.
Amazingly, I'm in full agreement with Sam. :)
Just the other day I stumbled across an article on VfD for which the entire text of the justification given for its nomination was:
"NN, D"
I'm hardly a newbie, but even for me it took a few minutes to figure out that "NN" meant non-notable. I checked the edit history of the editor who'd made the nomination and found about a dozen identical VfDs for other articles made at the same time. I voted "keep" on every last one of them because in my opinion the _nominations themselves_ were not adequate. I didn't even bother reading the actual articles and for all I know based on the justification given the nominator hadn't read them either - he apparently didn't even bother to take the time to type out whole words. Got accused of violating WP:POINT, of course, but I completely stand by my actions.
How about a policy whereby VfDs that don't adequately explain why the nominator made it can be summarily deleted? If someone proposes deleting an article they should at least show that they put effort into determining whether deletion was warranted.
Maybe they should be required to quote something from the article as proof that they have read it. Since many of these articles are stubs anyway it should not put to much of a strain on their reading skills.
Ec
What's his username? I'd like to slap him with a cluestick. Er, I mean, ask him politely to use English in vfd nominations.
On 9/8/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Jack Lynch wrote:
This thread is a very good argument for getting rid of VfD. The main thing I (and everyone I know who reads it) like about the wikipedia is the access to detailed information on absurdly obscure info. If someone searches for a web comic, it instantly becomes notable and encyclopedic. What are the deletionists thinking??? Wiki is not paper, and if you keep deleting, it won't be anything special as far as encyclopedias go, either.
Amazingly, I'm in full agreement with Sam. :)
Just the other day I stumbled across an article on VfD for which the entire text of the justification given for its nomination was:
"NN, D"
I'm hardly a newbie, but even for me it took a few minutes to figure out that "NN" meant non-notable. I checked the edit history of the editor who'd made the nomination and found about a dozen identical VfDs for other articles made at the same time. I voted "keep" on every last one of them because in my opinion the _nominations themselves_ were not adequate. I didn't even bother reading the actual articles and for all I know based on the justification given the nominator hadn't read them either - he apparently didn't even bother to take the time to type out whole words. Got accused of violating WP:POINT, of course, but I completely stand by my actions.
How about a policy whereby VfDs that don't adequately explain why the nominator made it can be summarily deleted? If someone proposes deleting an article they should at least show that they put effort into determining whether deletion was warranted. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Phroziac wrote:
What's his username? I'd like to slap him with a cluestick. Er, I mean, ask him politely to use English in vfd nominations.
ComCat, though there's probably no need to beat him too vigorously if he's been paying attention to his nominations - I explained my problem with them when I cast my votes.
The string of "NN, D" nominations started here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_Septem...
Bryan Derksen (bryan.derksen@shaw.ca) [050909 02:05]:
Just the other day I stumbled across an article on VfD for which the entire text of the justification given for its nomination was: "NN, D" I'm hardly a newbie, but even for me it took a few minutes to figure out that "NN" meant non-notable. I checked the edit history of the editor who'd made the nomination and found about a dozen identical VfDs for other articles made at the same time. I voted "keep" on every last one of them because in my opinion the _nominations themselves_ were not adequate.
Don't you know it's a terrible personal attack to question the motives of a deletion nomination? And calling a bogus nomination "bogus" just because it has no connection whatsoever with the actual deletion policy is apparently grievously insulting too.
I didn't even bother reading the actual articles and for all I know based on the justification given the nominator hadn't read them either - he apparently didn't even bother to take the time to type out whole words. Got accused of violating WP:POINT, of course, but I completely stand by my actions.
Tony Sidaway gets accused of that as well for closing nominations per the letter of the policy rather than the conventions of some VFD regulars.
How about a policy whereby VfDs that don't adequately explain why the nominator made it can be summarily deleted? If someone proposes deleting an article they should at least show that they put effort into determining whether deletion was warranted.
The VFD regulars have bitterly resisted each and any attempts in this direction, because then they might have to think or something before nominating.
- d.
On 9/7/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Snowspinner, I'm sorry that I harassed you, and that you feel so hurt by articles being deleted, but if people feel that something is not notable enough to belong in Wikipedia - and AFAICT, this is still a valid reason for voting to delete something (actually, I don't think you even *need* to provide a reason when voting) - then they will vote, "nn. webcomic, delete".
Well and honestly, one of the big problems with VfD is that it involves/d people voting on things they knew very little about, usually. I think it is worth reiterating that it is the job of the *article content* to establish notability, not the job of the voters. In an ideal VfD world, one would blame the articles for how they were voted, not the voters.
When I was pretty new here, a philosopher who I thought is notable enough for Wikipedia ended up on VfD once. I of course complained on the voting page and tried to convince people that he was notable and got angry that nobody was deferring to my judgment on it. Some smarter fellow than I came along and actually took what I said and *put it into the article*. After which point it was clear the article was notable and the article was kept. In this case, VfD was actually a positive process in article improvement -- something not too uncommon, I think, and an aspect of VfD which has been somewhat underemphasized in the calls for deletion reform.
FF
On Sep 7, 2005, at 11:37 AM, Fastfission wrote:
I think it is worth reiterating that it is the job of the *article content* to establish notability, not the job of the voters. In an ideal VfD world, one would blame the articles for how they were voted, not the voters.
In this case, VfD was actually a positive process in article improvement -- something not too uncommon, I think, and an aspect of VfD which has been somewhat underemphasized in the calls for deletion reform.
In fact, I personally think this is the *only* way to call attention to such questionable articles. As I've pointed out on Talk pages, there is a backlog of something like 30-50,000 articles tagged for {{cleanup}}. Simply tagging something questionable for {{cleanup-importance}} only adds to the hidden pile. If an article may not be important enough, putting it up on AFD brings it to the attention of hundreds of Wikipedians - "Hey, look, there's this article I can't make heads or tails of and it may not be encyclopedic. What do y'all think?"
Is this is the *best* way to do that? Probably not. But as long as the {{cleanup}} process is hopelessly broken, AFD is the only effective means of getting a questionable article in the limelight.
-FCYTravis
Travis Mason-Bushman Public Relations Director GAINSCO/Blackhawk Racing travis@gpsports-eng.com
Travis Mason-Bushman wrote:
In fact, I personally think this is the *only* way to call attention to such questionable articles. As I've pointed out on Talk pages, there is a backlog of something like 30-50,000 articles tagged for {{cleanup}}. Simply tagging something questionable for {{cleanup-importance}} only adds to the hidden pile. If an article may not be important enough, putting it up on AFD brings it to the attention of hundreds of Wikipedians - "Hey, look, there's this article I can't make heads or tails of and it may not be encyclopedic. What do y'all think?"
Is this is the *best* way to do that? Probably not. But as long as the {{cleanup}} process is hopelessly broken, AFD is the only effective means of getting a questionable article in the limelight.
-FCYTravis
This is not going to do anything except making AFD even more bogged down than it already is. Have patience- there are lots of articles in need of cleanup, but such is the nature of this project. As the topics covered in our circle of knowledge expands, the circumference will always be getting bigger, too.
-Ryan
The issue raised regarding backlog and tagging instead of action are quite valid, and quite to the point. But some background on the cleanup is needed. As one of the people who jumpstarted WP:CU along with Cimon Avaro, Angela, and others, I have a bit of a different view on "hopelessly broken" and the like.
Cleanup was a purpose-driven fork of VFD, which at the time was extremely overused --a differnt type of backlog. VFD's overuse violated the basic laws stating limits on Wiki page use and possibly the law of thermodynamics as well. Its the basic problem of Wikipedia using a platform which served us fine till now, but doesnt quite scale in certain areas than others. Theres some finite limit on how much high-traffic editing a particular page can handle, though that has greatly been improved with section editng, etc. This reminds me of the quote about supercomputers being 'machines for turning computation problems into I-O problems.' As WP probably has more direct human processing power ever assembled for focus on a single project, (aka a supercomputer) its always a question of handling the output data.
That requires a proper means to handle the processing (people programming) through policy and process. These need to scale up --not down, and these social processes (i.e. people protocols) need to be broader in their intelligent application, not narrowed in accord with red-button clearance models.
Summing up, there are technical limitations imposed by the nature of wiki for cross-article (and cross-wiki) applications. There are social limitations imposed by our current (flexible but non-definitive) social policy-making structure, and process limitations imposed by our current (small core) administration structure. These have always been problems and the only thing the community can ever really do is play catch-up.
Anyway, thats some generalized background. SV
--- Travis Mason-Bushman travis@gpsports-eng.com wrote:
On Sep 7, 2005, at 11:37 AM, Fastfission wrote:
I think it is worth reiterating that it is the job
of the *article
content* to establish notability, not the job of the voters. In an ideal
VfD world, one would
blame the articles for how they were voted, not
the voters.
In this case, VfD was actually a positive process
in article
improvement -- something not too uncommon, I think, and an aspect
of VfD which has
been somewhat underemphasized in the calls for deletion
reform.
In fact, I personally think this is the *only* way to call attention to such questionable articles. As I've pointed out on Talk pages, there is a backlog of something like 30-50,000 articles tagged for {{cleanup}}. Simply tagging something questionable for {{cleanup-importance}} only adds to the hidden pile. If an article may not be important enough, putting it up on AFD brings it to the attention of hundreds of Wikipedians - "Hey, look, there's this article I can't make heads or tails of and it may not be encyclopedic. What do y'all think?"
Is this is the *best* way to do that? Probably not. But as long as the {{cleanup}} process is hopelessly broken, AFD is the only effective means of getting a questionable article in the limelight.
-FCYTravis
Travis Mason-Bushman Public Relations Director GAINSCO/Blackhawk Racing travis@gpsports-eng.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
On Sep 7, 2005, at 7:00 AM, Alphax wrote:
As for your love of [[Elf Only Inn]], I see that (as of 11:00 UTC, 7th September 2005]] you have made a grand total of ZERO edits to that article. Stop bitching about the fact that an article was deleted, and expand the thing.
A) I actually hate the comic B) Since when is contributing to an article a necessary element in thinking it should be kept?
-Snowspinner
Snowspinner wrote:
On Sep 7, 2005, at 7:00 AM, Alphax wrote:
As for your love of [[Elf Only Inn]], I see that (as of 11:00 UTC, 7th September 2005]] you have made a grand total of ZERO edits to that article. Stop bitching about the fact that an article was deleted, and expand the thing.
A) I actually hate the comic
Yes, it has it's moments...
B) Since when is contributing to an article a necessary element in thinking it should be kept?
It's not.
Anyway, I've started a Vote for Undeletion... maybe the deleted material can be merged back into the history ;)
"Alphax" alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote in message news:431EC855.9050406@gmail.com...
Phil Sandifer wrote:
On 9/6/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
As for your love of [[Elf Only Inn]], I see that (as of 11:00 UTC, 7th September 2005]] you have made a grand total of ZERO edits to that article. Stop bitching about the fact that an article was deleted, and expand the thing.
As far I can see it, the problem is not that web-comic articles are being deleted because the articles themselves are missing some vital ingredient: they are being deleted because the subject fails to meet some arbitrary external standard (Alexa, is that right?) which has not been demonstrated to correlate with Wikipedia-style noteworthiness. So expanding the article will do no good, because it has already been decreed that the subject thereof is unworthy.
As with many other subject areas, the impression is given of a small clique of "web-comic experts" who hover over AfD savagely rending any web-comic-related articles unlucky enough to fall into their path. The resultant mosh is what keeps me, and probably many others, from attempting to join in the procedure.
Snowspinner wrote
And what on Earth does it mean to be notable outside its community? For a webcomic to be notable outside its own fans? Outside of webcomics fans in general?
I have no difficulty at all assenting to the idea that VfD can get it wrong - happens daily, I imagine. I think we should be concerned if any area is treated with inherent prejudice, and this may be a prime example.
The way these points are posed, though, suggests weaknesses elsewhere. If there are awards, ratings, a community voice, document them on WP first. That is, develop the supporting articles on webcomics, so that those articles posted do not appear simply to be URLs in a vacuum of context.
Charles
When it comes to webcomics, it is extremely hard (for a non-insider) to make a judgment between notable and non-notable, which is exactly the point in having guidelines. I know this is elitist, but in these matters an uninformed opinion is a potentially destructive one.
That is why you should defer judgement to those who know what they talk about.
Those who know what they talk about should edit the article to make it clear that it is notable and encyclopedic, if it is indeed so. "Argument from authority" only goes so far on an anonymous wiki -- but true authorities can provide evidence beyond themselves for what they say.
FF
On 9/8/05, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
When it comes to webcomics, it is extremely hard (for a non-insider) to make a judgment between notable and non-notable, which is exactly the point in having guidelines. I know this is elitist, but in these matters an uninformed opinion is a potentially destructive one.
That is why you should defer judgement to those who know what they talk about.
-- 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
Those who know what they talk about should edit the article to make it clear that it is notable and encyclopedic, if it is indeed so. "Argument from authority" only goes so far on an anonymous wiki -- but true authorities can provide evidence beyond themselves for what they say.
That happens. It rarely works however, because those who do not know are unwilling to change their vote or are "drive-by VfD-voters." That is, votes on an article then goes to the next one and votes again completely forgetting about the first article. Besides, with the VfD-scheme those who do know only have a few days to prove themselves. Which is not a lot of time if you have other things to do than edit an encyclopedia.
PS. Top posting sucks.
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
PS. Top posting sucks.
Yes.
Are you sure?
Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
Why is top posting frowned upon?
On 9/9/05, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
That happens. It rarely works however, because those who do not know are unwilling to change their vote or are "drive-by VfD-voters." That is, votes on an article then goes to the next one and votes again completely forgetting about the first article. Besides, with the VfD-scheme those who do know only have a few days to prove themselves. Which is not a lot of time if you have other things to do than edit an encyclopedia.
I don't know about frequencies, but I do agree that what you have described happens. Personally I think it would be nice if there were standards by which to request a re-vote. That is, a given voter could say, "This article has been significantly changed since it was originally nominated and the original nominating criteria may no longer apply. I'd like to re-list this and see what happens." Maybe one or two users could certify it or something like that. Of course you'd want some restrictions on it so that people don't try to "game the system" by re-listing and re-listing. Hmm. Anyway, just a passing thought.
Of course, regardless, it is *still* up to those writing the articles to make their notability clear when they write it. An argument from authority is useless on an anonymous encyclopedia. If the topic really is that notable, someone else will write the notable article at a later point, one would think.
FF
On 9/9/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know about frequencies, but I do agree that what you have described happens. Personally I think it would be nice if there were standards by which to request a re-vote. That is, a given voter could say, "This article has been significantly changed since it was originally nominated and the original nominating criteria may no longer apply. I'd like to re-list this and see what happens." Maybe one or two users could certify it or something like that. Of course you'd want some restrictions on it so that people don't try to "game the system" by re-listing and re-listing. Hmm. Anyway, just a passing thought.
If the article is being edited and re-edited, constantly being improved enough to get certified by another user or two, I don't see any problem at all with this type of gaming the system. In fact, I think we should strongly encourage that type of gaming the system.
Of course, regardless, it is *still* up to those writing the articles to make their notability clear when they write it. An argument from authority is useless on an anonymous encyclopedia. If the topic really is that notable, someone else will write the notable article at a later point, one would think.
Stubs expand only if they exist. This rhetorical "someone else" seldom writes fully referenced and cited articles in one fell swoop.
The problem is that article authors have an investment in what they write. VfD voters usually have no investment whatsoever; when I've called for the most basic of research of notability before voting "delete", a three second Google search, I've been accused of making personal attacks against delete voters. VfD will always remain toxic, especially to new users who aren't accustomed to it's climate, if we cannot insist that delete voters put in at least some tiny effort into research before voting.
On 9/9/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
If the article is being edited and re-edited, constantly being improved enough to get certified by another user or two, I don't see any problem at all with this type of gaming the system. In fact, I think we should strongly encourage that type of gaming the system.
Well, I mean for articles which clearly ARE non-notable; i.e. some vanity band page and the bassist keeps adding new information to the article in an appeal to keep it alive. But needing another user (and not a sockpuppet) to "certify" any requests would probably stop 90% of that sort of "gaming".
Stubs expand only if they exist. This rhetorical "someone else" seldom writes fully referenced and cited articles in one fell swoop.
Well, true. But stubs don't expand by themselves, either. (Of course, I have to admit, I enjoy writing new, uncreated articles in on fell swoop, in part because then I can add it to the "Did you know?" list, and having things on the front page is very satisfying to me; not so much for the vanity aspects, but it's one of the easiest ways to get some attention for your articles from other editors).
The problem is that article authors have an investment in what they write. VfD voters usually have no investment whatsoever; when I've called for the most basic of research of notability before voting "delete", a three second Google search, I've been accused of making personal attacks against delete voters. VfD will always remain toxic, especially to new users who aren't accustomed to it's climate, if we cannot insist that delete voters put in at least some tiny effort into research before voting.
Sure, but I don't know how you'd get *voters* to do that without doing something like limiting the voting pool significantly. One alternative approach is to make *nominators* work a bit harder -- i.e., not allowing nominations which don't reflect some sort of attempt was made to really assess the article or not.
Sometimes (maybe most of the time), I think this is the case: a nominator comes in, says, "Look, this biography looks like a vanity article to me. This guy's name gets no google hits. He apparently used to own a baseball team. Big whoop. Let's axe it." Most voters wouldn't even have to verify this -- if only a few voters DID check up on the nominator, one of them would likely vote "Strong Keep -- what you've written is just plain wrong, I ran his name through Google and found out he's president of the United States!" which would hopefully influence other voters as well.
(Of course, I haven't been taking part at all in the deletion reform, so I shouldn't be so eager to be an armchair philosopher about it.)
FF
On 9/9/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
If the article is being edited and re-edited, constantly being improved enough to get certified by another user or two, I don't see any problem at all with this type of gaming the system. In fact, I think we should strongly encourage that type of gaming the system.
Well, I mean for articles which clearly ARE non-notable; i.e. some vanity band page and the bassist keeps adding new information to the article in an appeal to keep it alive. But needing another user (and not a sockpuppet) to "certify" any requests would probably stop 90% of that sort of "gaming".
Needing a <i>different</i> (non-sockpuppet) user to certify that the each change warrants a restart of the vote would stop 99% of the gaming of the system before the fifth certification, even if each of the band members sets up an account. ;)
Stubs expand only if they exist. This rhetorical "someone else" seldom writes fully referenced and cited articles in one fell swoop.
Well, true. But stubs don't expand by themselves, either. (Of course, I have to admit, I enjoy writing new, uncreated articles in on fell swoop, in part because then I can add it to the "Did you know?" list, and having things on the front page is very satisfying to me; not so much for the vanity aspects, but it's one of the easiest ways to get some attention for your articles from other editors).
YOU'RE the 'rhetorical "someone else"'??? Glad to finally meet you! :D
The problem is that article authors have an investment in what they write. VfD voters usually have no investment whatsoever; when I've called for the most basic of research of notability before voting "delete", a three second Google search, I've been accused of making personal attacks against delete voters. VfD will always remain toxic, especially to new users who aren't accustomed to it's climate, if we cannot insist that delete voters put in at least some tiny effort into research before voting.
Sure, but I don't know how you'd get *voters* to do that without doing something like limiting the voting pool significantly. One alternative approach is to make *nominators* work a bit harder -- i.e., not allowing nominations which don't reflect some sort of attempt was made to really assess the article or not.
Sometimes (maybe most of the time), I think this is the case: a nominator comes in, says, "Look, this biography looks like a vanity article to me. This guy's name gets no google hits. He apparently used to own a baseball team. Big whoop. Let's axe it." Most voters wouldn't even have to verify this -- if only a few voters DID check up on the nominator, one of them would likely vote "Strong Keep -- what you've written is just plain wrong, I ran his name through Google and found out he's president of the United States!" which would hopefully influence other voters as well.
Sounds like a great idea; that a VfD can be ended with "Speedy Keep" if nominators don't explain how they performed a bit of research and what the results were. Even if the article gets nominated properly two minutes later, this would be a huge improvement over what frequently occurs now.
(Of course, I haven't been taking part at all in the deletion reform, so I shouldn't be so eager to be an armchair philosopher about it.)
On the contrary, in my opinion, you've just made some very good suggestions.
On 09/09/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I mean for articles which clearly ARE non-notable; i.e. some vanity band page and the bassist keeps adding new information to the article in an appeal to keep it alive. But needing another user (and not a sockpuppet) to "certify" any requests would probably stop 90% of that sort of "gaming".
Needing a <i>different</i> (non-sockpuppet) user to certify that the each change warrants a restart of the vote would stop 99% of the gaming of the system before the fifth certification, even if each of the band members sets up an account. ;)
Another aspect that could help is reemphasising that VFD is a discussion, not an election; if there are a large number of votes to delete, but all the votes in the last three days are to keep, and aren't sockish, then that is quite likely not actually a consensus to delete.
Well, true. But stubs don't expand by themselves, either. (Of course, I have to admit, I enjoy writing new, uncreated articles in on fell swoop, in part because then I can add it to the "Did you know?" list, and having things on the front page is very satisfying to me; not so much for the vanity aspects, but it's one of the easiest ways to get some attention for your articles from other editors).
YOU'RE the 'rhetorical "someone else"'??? Glad to finally meet you! :D
In all seriousness, I think DYK is one of the best tools we have for encouraging good new articles. Try as we might to downplay vanity, it is a cheering thing to see something you wrote on the front page; I try and ensure that as many articles that I write as possible are good enough to be DYKed - plus, as FF says, it's a guaranteed way to get people to come and edit your work, to link it into things you wouldn't have thought of...
Even if it's anonymous, we all like the egoboo of knowing people are reading our work. It's one of the hidden advantages of the wiki system, being able to see this so clearly.
Hi there,
Another aspect that could help is reemphasising that VFD is a discussion, not an election;
Wasn't that the reason for the switch from VfD-->AfD? The whole change struck me as somewhat odd, as if people want to pretend VfD is something it is not in order to keep sockpuppets away. Of course, the actual name change was welcome ("Votes for deletion" always gets a chuckle from me :)).
Thanks, RN
WHOA - SPUI just moved all the AfD pages back to VfD!!!
"being bold, just like whoever moved it here"
I guess so!
Ryan
I've blocked him for an hour and am reverting all his moves. We don't need this trolling.
Sam
On 9/9/05, Ryan Norton wxprojects@comcast.net wrote:
WHOA - SPUI just moved all the AfD pages back to VfD!!!
"being bold, just like whoever moved it here"
I guess so!
Ryan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Them%21_%281954_film%29
On 9/9/05, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Sam Korn wrote:
I've blocked him for an hour and am reverting all his moves. We don't need this trolling.
What the fuck? How is this any different than the bold move to AFD? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/9/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
In all seriousness, I think DYK is one of the best tools we have for encouraging good new articles. Try as we might to downplay vanity, it is a cheering thing to see something you wrote on the front page; I try and ensure that as many articles that I write as possible are good enough to be DYKed - plus, as FF says, it's a guaranteed way to get people to come and edit your work, to link it into things you wouldn't have thought of...
Even if it's anonymous, we all like the egoboo of knowing people are reading our work. It's one of the hidden advantages of the wiki system, being able to see this so clearly.
There's vanity and then there's vanity. We can't downplay most vanity too much -- it's one of the main reasons that people will participate in a volunteer website! We don't pay people with money, we pay them with personal credit and a sense of participating materially in something bigger than themselves. Anthropologists and economists call this a [[gift economy]]. I'm not sure if that totally explains why so many people would waste their time ;-) on a wiki, but it's a nice start at a theoretical framework.
FF
What really bugs me is the deletionists who don't just say to delete it and tell why. They have to include personal attacks, and lame comments that just tend to make people mad. I've even witnessed admins doing this.
On 9/9/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
In all seriousness, I think DYK is one of the best tools we have for encouraging good new articles. Try as we might to downplay vanity, it is a cheering thing to see something you wrote on the front page; I try and ensure that as many articles that I write as possible are good enough to be DYKed - plus, as FF says, it's a guaranteed way to get people to come and edit your work, to link it into things you wouldn't have thought of...
Even if it's anonymous, we all like the egoboo of knowing people are reading our work. It's one of the hidden advantages of the wiki system, being able to see this so clearly.
There's vanity and then there's vanity. We can't downplay most vanity too much -- it's one of the main reasons that people will participate in a volunteer website! We don't pay people with money, we pay them with personal credit and a sense of participating materially in something bigger than themselves. Anthropologists and economists call this a [[gift economy]]. I'm not sure if that totally explains why so many people would waste their time ;-) on a wiki, but it's a nice start at a theoretical framework.
FF _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'm also tired of the use of '<whatever>-cruft' as a reason for deletion. There's a certain mindset that seems to think that the existence of articles on minor but factual and verifiable topics detracts from Wikipedia. To that, I'd say: everyone's pet interest is a fringe interest to someone. Whether a Wikipedia article should exist on a topic should have nothing to do with how well one can disparage the subset of people interested in that particular topic.
That said, if there's not enough to say about a topic, it might not deserve an article of its very own. I'm all in favor of e.g. grouping minor fictional characters together in an article 'Minor characters in <novel>', or whatever.
-Matt
Matt Brown wrote:
I'm also tired of the use of '<whatever>-cruft' as a reason for deletion. There's a certain mindset that seems to think that the existence of articles on minor but factual and verifiable topics detracts from Wikipedia. To that, I'd say: everyone's pet interest is a fringe interest to someone.
I remember once coming across a VfD where someone wanted to delete an article because it was "sciencecruft". It was about some obscure mathematical thing I didn't understand, and probably that the nominator didn't understand either. :)
On 10/09/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
I'm also tired of the use of '<whatever>-cruft' as a reason for deletion. There's a certain mindset that seems to think that the existence of articles on minor but factual and verifiable topics detracts from Wikipedia. To that, I'd say: everyone's pet interest is a fringe interest to someone.
I remember once coming across a VfD where someone wanted to delete an article because it was "sciencecruft". It was about some obscure mathematical thing I didn't understand, and probably that the nominator didn't understand either. :)
There was a spate of transuranic elements being put on VfD last December (or November, or thereabouts), as "sciencecruft" - the only thing that seemed to distinguish them was that they were ones where the "common" name hadn't yet been officially agreed. Whether they existed yet or not seemed to be considered an irrelevancy...
At 02:08 AM 9/10/2005, Bryan Derksen wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
I'm also tired of the use of '<whatever>-cruft' as a reason for deletion. There's a certain mindset that seems to think that the existence of articles on minor but factual and verifiable topics detracts from Wikipedia. To that, I'd say: everyone's pet interest is a fringe interest to someone.
I remember once coming across a VfD where someone wanted to delete an article because it was "sciencecruft". It was about some obscure mathematical thing I didn't understand, and probably that the nominator didn't understand either. :)
Just think of all the articles that are historycruft or geographycruft...
On 10/09/05, Chris Lüer chris@zandria.net wrote:
At 02:08 AM 9/10/2005, Bryan Derksen wrote:
I remember once coming across a VfD where someone wanted to delete an article because it was "sciencecruft". It was about some obscure mathematical thing I didn't understand, and probably that the nominator didn't understand either. :)
Just think of all the articles that are historycruft or geographycruft...
And we have whole namespaces full of wikicruft! Delete, delete...
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Phroziac wrote:
What really bugs me is the deletionists who don't just say to delete it and tell why. They have to include personal attacks, and lame comments that just tend to make people mad. I've even witnessed admins doing this.
I see your point, Phroziac, but there are a couple of other issues to consider:
* A surprising number of times, an article listed on AfD so squarely (& if I may say it, routinely) fits the criteria that the entire argument for deletion can be summed up in one or two words. An article about (for example) a bartender in Eugene, Oregon that mixes a mean gimlet is not worth an entry in Wikipedia based on that information alone; depending on my mood at the time, I might explain that tending bar does not make a person worthy of inclusion, or just label it as "vanity" & move on to the next item.
* Many times, again, the reasons for deletion are so clear that there is little more to be said. If I encounter a situation like this would it be better to write "Delete. I agree" after my vote than to just add "Delete"?
* Some of these nominations for deletion are so poorly written that they beg to be made fun of -- or otherwise get under my skin. I find that I tend to respond to these nominees much in the spirit that they are written in: if a vanity article is written in Leet Speak, I'll likely substitute one or two e's with a "3" in my a comment. If an article is written professionally, I'll give it more respect.
* One thing that puzzles me is that if an article is nominated for failing to establish notability, but the subject is notable & this claim is repeated on AfD, then why doesn't the articles' supporters make the needed improvements to the article immediately? Not only would this immediately improve Wikipedia for end users, but it may accelerate a consensus towards Keep? (I've withdrawn nominations for articles in these cases.)
* And lastly, sometimes I contribute a vote/opinion about an article if only one or two other persons have contributed, even if all I have written is "Delete": I don't want someone wikilawyering a clear choice for deletion because not enough people have expressed an opinion about the article. (And I've made the opposite contribution, too.)
In short, sometimes a detailed argument is needed on AfD; other times, it's a case of "Fish. Barrel. Gun."
Geoff
I can agree, but i wasn't actually referring to that. I'm referring to things like (and directly quoting here)...
Get a grip. Wow. I thought this was an encyclopedia. Next will be an article on the old lady who gives out boxes of raisins instead of candy on Halloween.
On 9/10/05, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Phroziac wrote:
What really bugs me is the deletionists who don't just say to delete it and tell why. They have to include personal attacks, and lame comments that just tend to make people mad. I've even witnessed admins doing this.
I see your point, Phroziac, but there are a couple of other issues to consider:
- A surprising number of times, an article listed on AfD so squarely
(& if I may say it, routinely) fits the criteria that the entire argument for deletion can be summed up in one or two words. An article about (for example) a bartender in Eugene, Oregon that mixes a mean gimlet is not worth an entry in Wikipedia based on that information alone; depending on my mood at the time, I might explain that tending bar does not make a person worthy of inclusion, or just label it as "vanity" & move on to the next item.
- Many times, again, the reasons for deletion are so clear that
there is little more to be said. If I encounter a situation like this would it be better to write "Delete. I agree" after my vote than to just add "Delete"?
- Some of these nominations for deletion are so poorly written that
they beg to be made fun of -- or otherwise get under my skin. I find that I tend to respond to these nominees much in the spirit that they are written in: if a vanity article is written in Leet Speak, I'll likely substitute one or two e's with a "3" in my a comment. If an article is written professionally, I'll give it more respect.
- One thing that puzzles me is that if an article is nominated for
failing to establish notability, but the subject is notable & this claim is repeated on AfD, then why doesn't the articles' supporters make the needed improvements to the article immediately? Not only would this immediately improve Wikipedia for end users, but it may accelerate a consensus towards Keep? (I've withdrawn nominations for articles in these cases.)
- And lastly, sometimes I contribute a vote/opinion about an article
if only one or two other persons have contributed, even if all I have written is "Delete": I don't want someone wikilawyering a clear choice for deletion because not enough people have expressed an opinion about the article. (And I've made the opposite contribution, too.)
In short, sometimes a detailed argument is needed on AfD; other times, it's a case of "Fish. Barrel. Gun."
Geoff
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Saturday, September 10, 2005, at 05:07 PM, Phroziac wrote:
I can agree, but i wasn't actually referring to that. I'm referring to things like (and directly quoting here)...
Get a grip. Wow. I thought this was an encyclopedia. Next will be an article on the old lady who gives out boxes of raisins instead of candy on Halloween.
"If this gets kept, I'm adding an article for my Enormous Penis Syndrome support group (our members are growing!)."
(funny, but demonstrates VfD mentality)
Thanks, RN
Remeber if you make legit deletions harder on VFD you will simply end up with a stealth increase of speedy delete.
geni wrote:
Remeber if you make legit deletions harder on VFD you will simply end up with a stealth increase of speedy delete.
TINC.
Ryan Norton wrote:
On Saturday, September 10, 2005, at 05:07 PM, Phroziac wrote:
I can agree, but i wasn't actually referring to that. I'm referring to things like (and directly quoting here)...
Get a grip. Wow. I thought this was an encyclopedia. Next will be an article on the old lady who gives out boxes of raisins instead of candy on Halloween.
"If this gets kept, I'm adding an article for my Enormous Penis Syndrome support group (our members are growing!)."
Ahh! So you're the one who mixes Viagra with the Hallowe'en candy. :-)
Ec
Phroziac wrote:
I can agree, but i wasn't actually referring to that. I'm referring to things like (and directly quoting here)...
Get a grip. Wow. I thought this was an encyclopedia. Next will be an article on the old lady who gives out boxes of raisins instead of candy on Halloween.
Wasn't there a song about a little old lady from Pasadena?
Ec
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Phroziac wrote:
I can agree, but i wasn't actually referring to that. I'm referring to things like (and directly quoting here)...
Get a grip. Wow. I thought this was an encyclopedia. Next will be an article on the old lady who gives out boxes of raisins instead of candy on Halloween.
When I started writing my letter, it was to agree with you. (I agree with the general condemnation of "cruft", for example.)
But the more I thought about what's been said here, & the lack of specific examples, I found I didn't know what or who anyone here was complaining about. I've followed AfD for about a week, argued to keep & delete articles (sometimes against the prevailing consensus), & haven't found many examples of objectionable behavior or language. So I ended up writing a screed that argued the opposing case.
It helps to be precise. Otherwise, I, for one, find it easy to introduce for consideration lots of possible, but irrelevant, cases while discussing this matter.
Geoff
Nobody's protesting the use of *humor* of course. But the nomination should at least be comprehensible. It's really not that much harder to write "Clearly a vanity page; non-notable bartender in Eugene, Oregon" than it is to write "vanity". It's clearly not efficiency which is driving poor nominations.
FF
On 9/10/05, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Phroziac wrote:
What really bugs me is the deletionists who don't just say to delete it and tell why. They have to include personal attacks, and lame comments that just tend to make people mad. I've even witnessed admins doing this.
I see your point, Phroziac, but there are a couple of other issues to consider:
- A surprising number of times, an article listed on AfD so squarely
(& if I may say it, routinely) fits the criteria that the entire argument for deletion can be summed up in one or two words. An article about (for example) a bartender in Eugene, Oregon that mixes a mean gimlet is not worth an entry in Wikipedia based on that information alone; depending on my mood at the time, I might explain that tending bar does not make a person worthy of inclusion, or just label it as "vanity" & move on to the next item.
- Many times, again, the reasons for deletion are so clear that
there is little more to be said. If I encounter a situation like this would it be better to write "Delete. I agree" after my vote than to just add "Delete"?
- Some of these nominations for deletion are so poorly written that
they beg to be made fun of -- or otherwise get under my skin. I find that I tend to respond to these nominees much in the spirit that they are written in: if a vanity article is written in Leet Speak, I'll likely substitute one or two e's with a "3" in my a comment. If an article is written professionally, I'll give it more respect.
- One thing that puzzles me is that if an article is nominated for
failing to establish notability, but the subject is notable & this claim is repeated on AfD, then why doesn't the articles' supporters make the needed improvements to the article immediately? Not only would this immediately improve Wikipedia for end users, but it may accelerate a consensus towards Keep? (I've withdrawn nominations for articles in these cases.)
- And lastly, sometimes I contribute a vote/opinion about an article
if only one or two other persons have contributed, even if all I have written is "Delete": I don't want someone wikilawyering a clear choice for deletion because not enough people have expressed an opinion about the article. (And I've made the opposite contribution, too.)
In short, sometimes a detailed argument is needed on AfD; other times, it's a case of "Fish. Barrel. Gun."
Geoff
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l