Sam Korn wrote:
On 11/19/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Isn't it? If an article gets one third "keep" votes, one third "merge" votes, and one third "delete" votes, the article gets kept. Even if an article gets 100% merge votes, it's still "kept" - the old title gets turned into a redirect and the information that was there gets moved into an existing article the redirect points to. And this isn't a binding forever and ever result like "delete" is, either, so the material could eventually get split back out and moved to the old title again one day if it grows enough to warrant it. I myself can think of two cases where I merged articles after an AfD, complaints arose from people who didn't like the resulting merged article, so I split the material back out again to the original location and that was that.
I see "merge" as a vote to keep accompanied by a recommendation for how to clean up the kept article afterward.
Merge is a vote to merge. I don't see putting words into nominators' mouths as acceptable. If people vote merge, they aren't necessarily giving anyone permission to enterpret their vote in any other way.
Here's an illustration to clarify the point. Quite a few articles get deleted for inherently inappropriate subject matter, such as agenda-pushing conspiracy theories. Suppose someone writes [[Swiss incitement of the Paris riots]]. A nomination like this will normally see quite a few merge votes, as in "merge any verifiable information into the article about the recent civil unrest in France."
These merge votes are most certainly not votes to keep even a redirect at [[Swiss incitement of the Paris riots]]. The title is absolutely ludicrous and needs to be deleted, and these people realize that. However, they vote to merge out of concern that we salvage factual information that may not be in the real article, before deleting the bogus one.
--Michael Snow
Michael Snow wrote:
These merge votes are most certainly not votes to keep even a redirect at [[Swiss incitement of the Paris riots]]. The title is absolutely ludicrous and needs to be deleted, and these people realize that. However, they vote to merge out of concern that we salvage factual information that may not be in the real article, before deleting the bogus one.
They should be voting "merge and delete", then. If they just vote "merge" then calling that a delete vote is itself putting words into mouths, whereas keeping is the default.
On 11/20/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
They should be voting "merge and delete", then. If they just vote "merge" then calling that a delete vote is itself putting words into mouths, whereas keeping is the default.
Merge and delete is not a possible vote. People should not have to vote in such a specific way to prevent vote-hijacking.
-- Sam
Sam Korn wrote:
Merge and delete is not a possible vote. People should not have to
vote in such a specific way to prevent vote-hijacking.
Sure it is.
*'''Merge''' [[Poisonous influences of fruit]] into [[Kumquat]] and delete. Good content, but it doesn't stand alone well and it's at a misleading title.
I just made that up but I can easily imagine a case where something like this would be worth doing. As for whether it's "hijacking" a vote, I'm not sure what you mean. If an article got one third "keep" votes, one third unqualified "merge" votes, and one third "delete" votes, should it be deleted or not?
On 11/20/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
*'''Merge''' [[Poisonous influences of fruit]] into [[Kumquat]] and delete. Good content, but it doesn't stand alone well and it's at a misleading title.
I just made that up but I can easily imagine a case where something like this would be worth doing. As for whether it's "hijacking" a vote, I'm not sure what you mean. If an article got one third "keep" votes, one third unqualified "merge" votes, and one third "delete" votes, should it be deleted or not?
"Merge and delete" is specifically prohibited as a vote. It is legally impossible.
If an article gets one third to keep, one third to merge, and one third to delete, there is no consensus. So it is kept as no consensus, but not as a keep. However, I would, as an editor, subsequently merge the former article into the latter, for exactly your reasons.
Is merging the same as keeping? No, plainly not. So the vote should not be enterpreted as such.
-- Sam
Sam Korn wrote:
On 11/20/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
They should be voting "merge and delete", then. If they just vote "merge" then calling that a delete vote is itself putting words into mouths, whereas keeping is the default.
Merge and delete is not a possible vote. People should not have to vote in such a specific way to prevent vote-hijacking.
People can vote any way they want. If people vote that way then it's possible. I don't know anything about the "vote-hijacking" jargon that you are trying to introduce.
Ec
On 11/20/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
People can vote any way they want. If people vote that way then it's possible. I don't know anything about the "vote-hijacking" jargon that you are trying to introduce.
Sadly, when a reality exists, you sometimes have to find a word to describe it.
-- Sam
On 11/20/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Sam Korn wrote:
On 11/20/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
They should be voting "merge and delete", then. If they just vote "merge" then calling that a delete vote is itself putting words into mouths, whereas keeping is the default.
Merge and delete is not a possible vote. People should not have to vote in such a specific way to prevent vote-hijacking.
People can vote any way they want. If people vote that way then it's possible. I don't know anything about the "vote-hijacking" jargon that you are trying to introduce.
Ec
The suggestion to merge is a vestige from a time when VfD was about reaching consensus about what to do rather than about voting and counting votes. If you want to count votes, then I guess you could take two positions. The first, which I'll call the Al Gore position, is to try to figure out whether the voter intended the merge vote to mean delete or not delete. The second, which I'll call the George W. Bush position, is to throw out the vote as invalid.
I'd like to take this moment to thank the arb com for banning me from participating in the joke that has become AfD.
Anthony
On 11/21/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
The suggestion to merge is a vestige from a time when VfD was about reaching consensus about what to do rather than about voting and counting votes. If you want to count votes, then I guess you could take two positions. The first, which I'll call the Al Gore position, is to try to figure out whether the voter intended the merge vote to mean delete or not delete. The second, which I'll call the George W. Bush position, is to throw out the vote as invalid.
I'd like to take this moment to thank the arb com for banning me from participating in the joke that has become AfD.
Ah, the old days! It's an interesting social phenonemon that people almost always think that what went before was better. Here, they're right.
Are people really going to say that the old consensus style was worse than the current voting style? I think that it is exactly the "this means keep and this means delete" atmosphere that has created the malodious pit that is AfD today.
-- Sam
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 11/20/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Sam Korn wrote:
On 11/20/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
They should be voting "merge and delete", then. If they just vote "merge" then calling that a delete vote is itself putting words into mouths, whereas keeping is the default.
Merge and delete is not a possible vote. People should not have to vote in such a specific way to prevent vote-hijacking.
People can vote any way they want. If people vote that way then it's possible. I don't know anything about the "vote-hijacking" jargon that you are trying to introduce.
The suggestion to merge is a vestige from a time when VfD was about reaching consensus about what to do rather than about voting and counting votes.
A whiff of nostalgia!
If you want to count votes, then I guess you could take two positions. The first, which I'll call the Al Gore position, is to try to figure out whether the voter intended the merge vote to mean delete or not delete. The second, which I'll call the George W. Bush position, is to throw out the vote as invalid.
Just choose the one which best achieves your goals. ;-)
Ec