"And yes, anything that can be deleted, probably should be deleted, because we must have articles only on truly worthy topics so to continue to be highly regarded by the reading public."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Resonance_%28MI...
(I disagree, obviously. Other than that, I'll let the article and the debate on it speak for themselves.)
On 6/19/06, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
"And yes, anything that can be deleted, probably should be deleted, because we must have articles only on truly worthy topics so to continue to be highly regarded by the reading public."
Something is a bit wrong when debates about the goals of Wikipedia are taking place in the midst of an AfD discussion for a specific article.
Steve
On 19/06/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/19/06, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
"And yes, anything that can be deleted, probably should be deleted, because we must have articles only on truly worthy topics so to continue to be highly regarded by the reading public."
Something is a bit wrong when debates about the goals of Wikipedia are taking place in the midst of an AfD discussion for a specific article.
I think ironic statements such as the above are bound to happen in AfD discussions with the current reputation of wikipedia in the community.
Peter Ansell
On 6/19/06, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
I think ironic statements such as the above are bound to happen in AfD discussions with the current reputation of wikipedia in the community.
Oh, well, if it's ironic...
Steve
G'day Ilmari,
"And yes, anything that can be deleted, probably should be deleted, because we must have articles only on truly worthy topics so to continue to be highly regarded by the reading public."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Resonance_%28MI...
(I disagree, obviously. Other than that, I'll let the article and the debate on it speak for themselves.)
I note, though, that neither you nor anyone else who has commented or is likely to comment here has seen fit to add your voices to the AfD in question.
AfD is doomed: it doesn't, and can't, scale. But its only *current* problems are social. And those problems won't be solved if the people who can recognise the issue and lend a hand aren't willing to get in there and do something about it.
Don't like what someone says on AfD? *Point it out to them*. Most people, even on the Internet, tend to be smart enough to recognise it when they're told they're being silly by enough people. You obviously feel strongly about the opinions expressed there --- so why not, instead of/in addition to complaining here, also tell them so on the AfD?
This is especially important as Crzrussian has recently become an administrator. He intends to be heavily involved in the deletion process. It's too late to revisit the RfA, so y'all have a choice --- he can be a good admin, or he can routinely fuck up anything related to deletion he comes across. I suspect the former is much more likely if everyone here who typically complains about this sort of thing is willing to *educate*, as well as bitch.
On 6/19/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Ilmari,
"And yes, anything that can be deleted, probably should be deleted, because we must have articles only on truly worthy topics so to continue to be highly regarded by the reading public."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Resonance_%28MI...
(I disagree, obviously. Other than that, I'll let the article and the debate on it speak for themselves.)
I note, though, that neither you nor anyone else who has commented or is likely to comment here has seen fit to add your voices to the AfD in question.
AfD is doomed: it doesn't, and can't, scale. But its only *current* problems are social. And those problems won't be solved if the people who can recognise the issue and lend a hand aren't willing to get in there and do something about it.
Don't like what someone says on AfD? *Point it out to them*. Most people, even on the Internet, tend to be smart enough to recognise it when they're told they're being silly by enough people. You obviously feel strongly about the opinions expressed there --- so why not, instead of/in addition to complaining here, also tell them so on the AfD?
This is especially important as Crzrussian has recently become an administrator. He intends to be heavily involved in the deletion process. It's too late to revisit the RfA, so y'all have a choice --- he can be a good admin, or he can routinely fuck up anything related to deletion he comes across. I suspect the former is much more likely if everyone here who typically complains about this sort of thing is willing to *educate*, as well as bitch.
-- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Mark,
Excellent point. Many people whinge about articles for deletion on this forum but few people vote.
For the record, I think the Articles for Deletion process gets things right most of the time. In my view, there are much fewer problems than with speedy deletion. I am yet to be convinced that there is a better process than articles for deletion.
Regards
Keith Old
On 6/19/06, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
For the record, I think the Articles for Deletion process gets things right most of the time. In my view, there are much fewer problems than with speedy deletion. I am yet to be convinced that there is a better process than articles for deletion.
It could be greatly improved, by making it more process-driven and focused on fact-finding, rather than "so, who reckons we oughta delete this one??" I've suggested this before, but anyway:
1. Nominator specifies a single criterion which the article fails under, and which is listed as being a reason for deletion (eg, copyvio, non-notability of subject, or article irremediably fails to establish notabilyt etc) 2. "Voters" express support or disagreement for this nomination: "Yes, it does fail under that criteria" or "No, it doesn't, and here's why" would be the only acceptable responses. 3. Closer (admin) verifies that the original nomination is valid (the criterion is indeed a reason for deletion), then checks the votes. If there are any strong, valid "keeps", it's kept. Otherwise, either merged or deleted, depending on the original nomination.
Steve
On 6/19/06, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
Excellent point. Many people whinge about articles for deletion on this forum but few people vote.
I find that Dragons flight's AFD summary is an excellent way to find ongoing debates that are on the knife edge, so to speak (and much easier than trawling through a hundred debates a day): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_flight/AFD_summary
There's even a page specifically for controversial debates, ones with at least 5 people participating and between 50-80% delete: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_flight/AFD_summary/Controversial This seems to work fairly well; it correctly picked out the Resonance AfD as controversial, for example.
For the record, I think the Articles for Deletion process gets things right most of the time. In my view, there are much fewer problems than with speedy deletion. I am yet to be convinced that there is a better process than articles for deletion.
I agree. People have been saying it is broken for as long as I've been here and it seems to work ok. There are problems at the margins, but I would expect that from any process, and AfD gets it "right" probably 90-95% of the time or higher. All it needs is some people participating who put a little thought into their comments, and some admins who put a little thought into closing debates.
Keith Old wrote:
Excellent point. Many people whinge about articles for deletion on this forum but few people vote.
I can't load any afd day page, my system can no longer handle it, it's an old '98 firefox running PIII. Those day pages are simply far too large now, for me, and if I may, from my perspective I'd like to suggest that perhaps we need to think about stopping the transclusion. Maybe that would also have the advantage of forcing people to think about which discussions they are going to vote on. Also, perhaps the afd listing could link to the article rather than the discussion, so we could guarantee someone would have to look at the article before commenting at the deletion debate.
Just some thoughts.
Steve Block
On 6/20/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
I can't load any afd day page, my system can no longer handle it, it's an old '98 firefox running PIII. Those day pages are simply far too large now, for me, and if I may, from my perspective I'd like to suggest that perhaps we need to think about stopping the transclusion. Maybe that would also have the advantage of forcing people to think about which discussions they are going to vote on. Also, perhaps the afd listing could link to the article rather than the discussion, so we could guarantee someone would have to look at the article before commenting at the deletion debate.
I would instead propose that AfDs be categorised. Either (as I've suggested a couple of times) by the reason for AfD (can't determine notability, unsuitable topic...), or by the field (pop culture, science, history...). Of course, the field may not always be obvious in the case of an article being proposed for deletion due to insufficient context...
In this case, it would probably be best if nominatiors place them all on one page, then other people distribute them as necessary. Alternatively, some system whereby {{afd}} gets replaced by {{afd-pop-culture}} etc, akin to stub sorting, might work.
This all has the positive side effect of making it easier for people expert in one domain to contribute to discussions in their domain.
Steve
On 6/20/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I would instead propose that AfDs be categorised. Either (as I've suggested a couple of times) by the reason for AfD (can't determine notability, unsuitable topic...), or by the field (pop culture, science, history...). Of course, the field may not always be obvious in the case of an article being proposed for deletion due to insufficient context...
The day system has its advantages, if only to make it easier for closing admins to deal with a debates more than five days old by closing a day's worth at a time.
On 6/20/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
The day system has its advantages, if only to make it easier for closing admins to deal with a debates more than five days old by closing a day's worth at a time.
I would be proposing a subdivison of the day system, not a replacement.
Jun_20 /popculture /science /insufficientcontext ...
Steve
On 6/20/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I would be proposing a subdivison of the day system, not a replacement.
Jun_20 /popculture /science /insufficientcontext ...
Oh, ok. Well why not just add categories to the existing subpages? Say, [[Category:Science articles for deletion]] onto all science-related AfDs.
I suppose that there would need to be archive categories so that only current AfDs remain in the category.
On 6/20/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, ok. Well why not just add categories to the existing subpages? Say, [[Category:Science articles for deletion]] onto all science-related AfDs.
It's not possible to transclude all members of a category. (Sadly).
Steve
On 6/21/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/20/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, ok. Well why not just add categories to the existing subpages? Say, [[Category:Science articles for deletion]] onto all science-related AfDs.
It's not possible to transclude all members of a category. (Sadly).
I meant just have the current system but add the categories on top as needed. This might be simpler to get started than other options.
On 6/19/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
AfD is doomed: it doesn't, and can't, scale.
People have been saying this for over a year. Doesn't appear to have fallen apart yet.
Maybe it's just me, but I think that this current system is fine because as of now, (for most articles) we get enough votes either for '''Keep''' or '''Delete''' and it is not a hassle for users to vote.
--Mets501
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of geni Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 9:10 AM To: m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au; English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] More quotes from AfD
On 6/19/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
AfD is doomed: it doesn't, and can't, scale.
People have been saying this for over a year. Doesn't appear to have fallen apart yet.
Jeremy Cushman wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but I think that this current system is fine because as of now, (for most articles) we get enough votes either for '''Keep''' or '''Delete''' and it is not a hassle for users to vote.
AFD IS *NOT* A VOTE. VFD was a vote, and it was *deleted*.
AFD is where we /try/ and work out if an article is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. The *number* of people who comment on any given AFD means *absolutely bugger all*. The only things we should be discussing on AFD are:
1. Is the article suitable for inclusion? 2. Why or why not? 3. Are there any experts in the area who wish to comment? 4. Outcome
Anything short of Using Common Sense when discussing deletion of articles is sheer lunacy, hurts the encyclopedia, makes Wikipedia look bad, makes the people who continue to do this sort of thing become partial to the taste of lightly cooked baby, and in general is a Bad Thing.
As stated[1] in the wub's First Law: The impossible holy grail of Wikipedia policy is a complete definition of common sense. It follows that anything less is flawed by comparison.
[1] [[WP:RAUL]]
G'day geni,
On 6/19/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
AfD is doomed: it doesn't, and can't, scale.
People have been saying this for over a year. Doesn't appear to have fallen apart yet.
Yes, that was sorta my point. It's doomed *eventually*, but for now it's working, and its only *current* problems can be cured if we're willing to put in the effort.
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Ilmari,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Resonance_%28MI...
I note, though, that neither you nor anyone else who has commented or is likely to comment here has seen fit to add your voices to the AfD in question.
Actually, I did. The comment I quoted here was in response to that.
Also I wasn't really trying to bitch so much as see if someone here would have something constructive to say about it, or at least would be willing to support one side or the other in the debate. At this point, I can't think of much I could add to the AfD discussion itself on my own, save for iterations of "Is too!" / "Is not!" ad nauseam.
I seem to recall Crzrussian posting to this list, so I was implicitly soliciting his opinion as well.
G'day Ilmari,
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Ilmari,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Resonance_%28MI...
I note, though, that neither you nor anyone else who has commented or is likely to comment here has seen fit to add your voices to the AfD in question.
Actually, I did. The comment I quoted here was in response to that.
Whoops! So you did. My mistake.
Also I wasn't really trying to bitch so much as see if someone here would have something constructive to say about it, or at least would be willing to support one side or the other in the debate. At this point, I can't think of much I could add to the AfD discussion itself on my own, save for iterations of "Is too!" / "Is not!" ad nauseam.
Fair enough.
Note that I don't think there's anything wrong with posting about an issue to the list, to get better visibility for it --- e.g. this case, Herostratus' RfA, etc. What irritates me is when people complain to the list for the sake of complaining, without actually doing anything on Wikipedia themselves about the issue --- something I thought you were doing (because I wasn't paying attention), and I apologise.
It's not bitching on the list, per se, so much as using the list as a substitute for fixing easily-corrected problems.
<snip />
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Ilmari,
"And yes, anything that can be deleted, probably should be deleted, because we must have articles only on truly worthy topics so to continue to be highly regarded by the reading public."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Resonance_%28MI...
(I disagree, obviously. Other than that, I'll let the article and the debate on it speak for themselves.)
I note, though, that neither you nor anyone else who has commented or is likely to comment here has seen fit to add your voices to the AfD in question.
AfD is doomed: it doesn't, and can't, scale. But its only *current* problems are social. And those problems won't be solved if the people who can recognise the issue and lend a hand aren't willing to get in there and do something about it.
Don't like what someone says on AfD? *Point it out to them*. Most people, even on the Internet, tend to be smart enough to recognise it when they're told they're being silly by enough people. You obviously feel strongly about the opinions expressed there --- so why not, instead of/in addition to complaining here, also tell them so on the AfD?
This is especially important as Crzrussian has recently become an administrator. He intends to be heavily involved in the deletion process. It's too late to revisit the RfA, so y'all have a choice --- he can be a good admin, or he can routinely fuck up anything related to deletion he comes across. I suspect the former is much more likely if everyone here who typically complains about this sort of thing is willing to *educate*, as well as bitch.
Unfortunately it's difficulte to point things out and educate these sort of people without violating WP:NPA.
On 6/19/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately it's difficulte to point things out and educate these sort of people without violating WP:NPA.
Or at least, to not be perceived as having done so even if one has tried not to.
-Matt