How about this for an experiment: turn off article creation _and_ deletion for a while? Freeze the table of contents (not that we have one)...
So that all anyone could possibly do is to edit existing articles?
It would force everyone to pay attention to the articles that exist already, and with 857,833 of them you'd think people could find something worth their attention.
With deletion being impossible, AfD would become unnecessary... as would DRV. So, that should make one faction happy. On the other hand, there would be no opportunity to add subtrivial topics. (Or trivial topics, or significant topics). That should make another faction happy.
On the other hand, you could make both groups unhappy as there are plenty of topics that we don't have articles that are worthy of articles.
Regards
Keith Old
Keith Old User:Capitalistroadster
On 12/10/05, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
How about this for an experiment: turn off article creation _and_ deletion for a while? Freeze the table of contents (not that we have one)...
So that all anyone could possibly do is to edit existing articles?
It would force everyone to pay attention to the articles that exist already, and with 857,833 of them you'd think people could find something worth their attention.
With deletion being impossible, AfD would become unnecessary... as would DRV. So, that should make one faction happy. On the other hand, there would be no opportunity to add subtrivial topics. (Or trivial topics, or significant topics). That should make another faction happy.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Keith Old wrote:
On 12/10/05, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
How about this for an experiment: turn off article creation _and_ deletion for a while? Freeze the table of contents (not that we have one)... So that all anyone could possibly do is to edit existing articles? It would force everyone to pay attention to the articles that exist already, and with 857,833 of them you'd think people could find something worth their attention. With deletion being impossible, AfD would become unnecessary... as would DRV. So, that should make one faction happy. On the other hand, there would be no opportunity to add subtrivial topics. (Or trivial topics, or significant topics). That should make another faction happy.
On the other hand, you could make both groups unhappy as there are plenty of topics that we don't have articles that are worthy of articles.
Allow article creation in people's userspace. Then at the end of the month the articles might not suck.
- d.
That would focus people's attention on improving the existing stuff which often isn't happening. I wouldn't really oppose one week of pure improvement every month to encourage people to improve the existing rather than create more stuff that needs to be fixed.
If the stream of crap is stopped in its tracks, I have no problem with putting deletion on hold as well.
Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
That would focus people's attention on improving the existing stuff which often isn't happening. I wouldn't really oppose one week of pure improvement every month to encourage people to improve the existing rather than create more stuff that needs to be fixed. If the stream of crap is stopped in its tracks, I have no problem with putting deletion on hold as well.
OK. I suggest that some time soon (early January, say) we hold an Article Improvement Week.
* No new articles to be created. * AFD is closed for business - no deletions, no nominations. (Copyright violations, gross libel etc. can be zapped as usual.) * You can still work on new stuff in your userspace, but please don't move it to article space. (How or if to enforce this to be determined.)
A week should be long enough to get some effect and short enough not to frustrate people and make them go elsewhere because they want to write stuff (hence the userspace getout).
Effects I expect at the end of the week:
* Some article polishing. * More people practiced in article polishing. * A flood of new articles out of userspace. Hopefully better ones. People will also treat this as "work on those new articles you were thinking about" week. That's fine too. * A consequent flood of AFDs, but hopefully not as much because the articles will have been worked on for a week!
Thoughts?
- d.
On 12/10/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Thoughts?
- d.
Article creation seems to be running at about ~2% of total edits. So I don't expect a massive change in the amount of article polishing. Since a pretty high percentage of AFD is due to articles created on the day I doubt there will be much of a blip.
If a major event happens there may be problems.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 12/10/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Thoughts?
Article creation seems to be running at about ~2% of total edits. So I don't expect a massive change in the amount of article polishing. Since a pretty high percentage of AFD is due to articles created on the day I doubt there will be much of a blip.
Mmm. I think declaring it "Article Improvement Week" will help in itself.
(And since being told "you can't create articles" will immediately make people want to create articles, there's the userspace getout. Win!)
If a major event happens there may be problems.
There is that. "Articles may only be created by the Temporary New Articles Dictator, for a world-class major event."
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Article creation seems to be running at about ~2% of total edits. So I don't expect a massive change in the amount of article polishing. Since a pretty high percentage of AFD is due to articles created on the day I doubt there will be much of a blip.
Mmm. I think declaring it "Article Improvement Week" will help in itself.
(And since being told "you can't create articles" will immediately make people want to create articles, there's the userspace getout. Win!)
Why can't you declare an "article improvement week" without prohibiting people from creating new articles? Volunteer work on Wikipedia is not a "bag of labor" that can be reallocated at will, and I doubt few people who would not willingly participate in an article improvement week would be convinced to do so unwillingly because of a software change that prohibits them from creating new articles they would prefer to work on instead---they would more likely simply leave for a week. I know I would probably leave for the week on principle.
-Mark
Effects I expect at the end of the week:
* Some article polishing. * More people practiced in article polishing. * A flood of new articles out of userspace. Hopefully better ones. People will also treat this as "work on those new articles you were thinking about" week. That's fine too. * A consequent flood of AFDs, but hopefully not as much because the articles will have been worked on for a week!
Thoughts?
- d.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l I think with the exceptions here and elsewhere I think it's worth trying out for a week to see what happens. We're falling farther and farther behind with cleanup and it's not impossible that doing this 4-5 times a year might make a real difference. It might also make cleanup type work more of a core value among editors...
I think the idea of a heavily promoted Article Improvement Week is a useful one.
However, there is no reason to turn off AfD. Indeed, often the reason that articles are in AfD is that the topic is notable but the article is crap for various reasons including:
* short and lacking context;
* bogus articles on legitimate topics;
* lacking references.
My main focus in AfD is looking for articles that can be improved and turned into encyclopedia articles. There is no reason that AfD cannot form part of Article Improvement Week.
Similarly, not allowing the development of new articles may turn off newbies who came to Wikipedia for the purpose of creating articles. If we were to turn off article creation for the week, we should continue to have Articles for Creation working as well as allowing people to work on articles in their userspace. Alternatively, we could have a situation where articles could only be added by authorisation of an admin who could certify that it meets minimum encyclopedic standards.
The main focus of Article improvement week should be to have banners proclaiming it everywhere with a page showing how articles have been improved (ie articles cleaned up, stubs expanded, articles referenced and so on).
In summary, the idea of an Article Improvement Week is a useful one and should be pursued.
Regards
Keith Old
Keith Old User:Capitalistroadster
On 12/11/05, Brian Haws brian@bhaws.com wrote:
Effects I expect at the end of the week:
- Some article polishing.
- More people practiced in article polishing.
- A flood of new articles out of userspace. Hopefully better ones.
People will also treat this as "work on those new articles you were thinking about" week. That's fine too.
- A consequent flood of AFDs, but hopefully not as much because the
articles will have been worked on for a week!
Thoughts?
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l I think with the exceptions here and elsewhere I think it's worth trying out for a week to see what happens. We're falling farther and farther behind with cleanup and it's not impossible that doing this 4-5 times a year might make a real difference. It might also make cleanup type work more of a core value among editors...
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Keith Old wrote:
However, there is no reason to turn off AfD. Indeed, often the reason that articles are in AfD is that the topic is notable but the article is crap for various reasons including:
That's an abuse of AFD per the increasingly decorative policy. It's explicitly not for editorial work. But that's okay, they can form a "local consensus" against policy. ([[WT:AUM]] is currently trying to form a local consensus that supersedes computer science with voting, so it must be a good idea.)
- d.
On 12/10/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
That's an abuse of AFD per the increasingly decorative policy. It's explicitly not for editorial work.
One of my long-standing beefs with the deletion process is that people use it as cleanup, and when you call them on it, they say "But doing it this way gets results under the threat of deletion, while if you list something on cleanup, nothing ever gets done."
And then people turn round and say that if anything's ever deleted through AFD, the topic is never again allowed to exist, even if the reason for deletion was that it was a crap article that needed cleanup.
([[WT:AUM]] is currently trying to form a local consensus that supersedes computer science with voting, so it must be a good idea.)
More accurately, they can see the positive effects of getting creative with templates, while the negative effects are invisible on the small scale and thus easy to ignore.
The discussion we should be having is one of "Should we extend template syntax in order to allow more clever things to be done in a sensible, maintainable way that won't impact system performance?" Ugly template hacks to do logic and programs are not really the way to go there.
-Matt
Matt Brown wrote:
On 12/10/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
([[WT:AUM]] is currently trying to form a local consensus that supersedes computer science with voting, so it must be a good idea.)
More accurately, they can see the positive effects of getting creative with templates, while the negative effects are invisible on the small scale and thus easy to ignore.
Yep.
The discussion we should be having is one of "Should we extend template syntax in order to allow more clever things to be done in a sensible, maintainable way that won't impact system performance?"
Or "Stupid Mediawiki Tricks are l33t and cool. But if you can develop like that, please go hack on Mediawiki itself so this sort of thing doesn't trash our database and our cache hit ratio kthx."
Ugly template hacks to do logic and programs are not really the way to go there.
[[Uncyclopedia:Template:Wotd]]
(Confession: I just put this on Uncyclopedia's main page. Now to see if JasonR rips my throat out with a spork ...)
- d.
One of my long-standing beefs with the deletion process is that people use it as cleanup, and when you call them on it, they say "But doing it this way gets results under the threat of deletion, while if you list something on cleanup, nothing ever gets done."
There is a fine line between an acceptable article and a substandard one. If no one is willing to improve something that is substandard, then why should we keep it around?
And then people turn round and say that if anything's ever deleted through AFD, the topic is never again allowed to exist, even if the reason for deletion was that it was a crap article that needed cleanup.
That is clearly against policy and such people should simply be ignored. Articles can only be deleted if they were substantially similar to deleted work. Perhaps it would help if we were to require specification of whether someone was voting based on the article subject or the article state?
Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
That is clearly against policy and such people should simply be ignored. Articles can only be deleted if they were substantially similar to deleted work. Perhaps it would help if we were to require specification of whether someone was voting based on the article subject or the article state?
Ignoring policy is already de rigeur on AFD. Compare voting and nomination patterns on AFD to [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy]]. The actual policy on AFD is "Because we feel like it." This is another reason to nuke from orbit and see if the cockroaches can do deletion better.
- d.
On 12/10/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
That is clearly against policy and such people should simply be ignored. Articles can only be deleted if they were substantially similar to deleted work. Perhaps it would help if we were to require specification of whether someone was voting based on the article subject or the article state?
Ignoring policy is already de rigeur on AFD. Compare voting and nomination patterns on AFD to [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy]]. The actual policy on AFD is "Because we feel like it." This is another reason to nuke from orbit and see if the cockroaches can do deletion better.
- d.
Examples?
Matt Brown wrote:
On 12/10/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
That's an abuse of AFD per the increasingly decorative policy. It's explicitly not for editorial work.
One of my long-standing beefs with the deletion process is that people use it as cleanup, and when you call them on it, they say "But doing it this way gets results under the threat of deletion, while if you list something on cleanup, nothing ever gets done."
I can understand this argument. When a kid doesn't get his proper and needed attention he feels compelled to cry louder. The challenge has to do with convincing people that washing the dishes right after a meal avoids having a difficult stack at the end of a week. If we do end up with a big stack of dirty dishes they still need to be washed rather than thrown out. The Karate Kid's first lessons were very important.
And then people turn round and say that if anything's ever deleted through AFD, the topic is never again allowed to exist, even if the reason for deletion was that it was a crap article that needed cleanup.
This is why I support making undeletion easier.
The discussion we should be having is one of "Should we extend template syntax in order to allow more clever things to be done in a sensible, maintainable way that won't impact system performance?" Ugly template hacks to do logic and programs are not really the way to go there.
I am clearly a minimalist when it comes to templates. These, including the shortcuts, are just another form of jargon. The more of them there are, the easier they are to forget, and the less friendly they are to the newcomer.
Ec
On 12/10/05, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
I think the idea of a heavily promoted Article Improvement Week is a useful one.
However, there is no reason to turn off AfD. Indeed, often the reason that articles are in AfD is that the topic is notable but the article is crap for various reasons including:
short and lacking context;
bogus articles on legitimate topics;
lacking references.
My main focus in AfD is looking for articles that can be improved and turned into encyclopedia articles. There is no reason that AfD cannot form part of Article Improvement Week.
For one week Articles for Deletion is renamed Articles for Improvement (symbolically, if actually moving the page would be technically problematic), and there's no voting or page destruction, just discussion of how to improve the article :).
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
For one week Articles for Deletion is renamed Articles for Improvement (symbolically, if actually moving the page would be technically problematic), and there's no voting or page destruction, just discussion of how to improve the article :).
Have you *looked* through AFD recently? I just looked at the past six days of nominations.
*shudder*
We really do have mountains of crap that must die as soon as possible.
I saw one nomination that really annoyed me - [[List of Scientology centers]] - which prompted me to comment that nominators should have to bother notifying the relevant wikiproject. 'Cos it's not a great article, but it's not deletable IMO, it's highly improvable (e.g. I could pepper it up with a pile of my own photos) and it's useful to the project.
- d.
On 12/11/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
For one week Articles for Deletion is renamed Articles for Improvement (symbolically, if actually moving the page would be technically problematic), and there's no voting or page destruction, just discussion of how to improve the article :).
Have you *looked* through AFD recently? I just looked at the past six days of nominations.
*shudder*
We really do have mountains of crap that must die as soon as possible.
I saw one nomination that really annoyed me - [[List of Scientology centers]] - which prompted me to comment that nominators should have to bother notifying the relevant wikiproject. 'Cos it's not a great article, but it's not deletable IMO, it's highly improvable (e.g. I could pepper it up with a pile of my own photos) and it's useful to the project.
- d.
We used to have a separate page just for "lists for deletion". Lists aren't really ever encyclopedia articles, and the standards for them should be different than the standards for articles.
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/11/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
I saw one nomination that really annoyed me - [[List of Scientology centers]] - which prompted me to comment that nominators should have to bother notifying the relevant wikiproject. 'Cos it's not a great article, but it's not deletable IMO, it's highly improvable (e.g. I could pepper it up with a pile of my own photos) and it's useful to the project.
We used to have a separate page just for "lists for deletion". Lists aren't really ever encyclopedia articles, and the standards for them should be different than the standards for articles.
What I mean is *only* one. This was unscientific - I didn't go through every one, just the ones that caught my eye. A few should never have been nominated because you don't need to ask AFD to do a merge and redirect. Others should never have been nominated because they said it was probably an encyclopedia topic but the article was crap - that's blatantly trying to make others do cleanup work for you. That sort of thing. I should go back to get actual numbers, but I've had enough AFD today kthx and someone else can.
- d.
On 11/12/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
I saw one nomination that really annoyed me - [[List of Scientology centers]] - which prompted me to comment that nominators should have to bother notifying the relevant wikiproject.
This is a nice idea - and it's excellent if there's an obvious wikiproject, like regional ones. But we have such a plethora of wikiprojects that it's not immediately obvious if we have one for a specific topic, unless you already know about it...
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 11/12/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
I saw one nomination that really annoyed me - [[List of Scientology centers]] - which prompted me to comment that nominators should have to bother notifying the relevant wikiproject.
This is a nice idea - and it's excellent if there's an obvious wikiproject, like regional ones. But we have such a plethora of wikiprojects that it's not immediately obvious if we have one for a specific topic, unless you already know about it...
Just because people on wikien-l agree something is a nice idea doesn't mean it'll ever happen. AFD regulars consistently resist any moves to make nomination more work than it is, apparently viewing all such ideas as instruction creep with malice aforethought.
- d.
"Andrew Gray" shimgray@gmail.com wrote in message news:f3fedb0d0512110649p57e2de49k@mail.gmail.com... On 11/12/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
I saw one nomination that really annoyed me - [[List of Scientology centers]] - which prompted me to comment that nominators should have to bother notifying the relevant wikiproject.
This is a nice idea - and it's excellent if there's an obvious wikiproject, like regional ones. But we have such a plethora of wikiprojects that it's not immediately obvious if we have one for a specific topic, unless you already know about it...
Maybe if more WikiProject participants put an appropriate notice on the talk pages for their articles, it would be possible to tell easily.
But hey, we don't want to make more work for the AFD vultures: why should they bother looking at the talk page if they can simply nominate the article and leave it for others to attempt to defend it?
I'm starting to like where this proposal is going. I have some suggestions that I'd like to throw out for feedback:
- AfD would be turned off for the first two weeks of the month (1st -14th). During this time no nominations or "votes" are allowed. Any article not nominated by the last day of the previous month would have to wait until the 15th. Existing AfDs would continued to be closed. Speedy deletion criteria would still be in effect.
- The second week of the month (8th-14th), all mainspace article creation would be turned off. This could be enforced through software by only allowing article creation by admins (and this would be strongly discouraged). Talk pages and pages in other namespaces could be created by all registered users.
- Starting on the 15th, Wikipedia would return to operating as usual (for the rest of the month).
I believe that the result of these changes would be to create a cycle in which more articles were developed into "real" articles rather than remaining substandard. It also cuts AfD's status to part-time. There probably would be a flood of nomination on the 15th of each month, but by this point every article would have had at least one full week to improve and likely closer to two weeks.
Again, this is just a rough proposal, but I believe it could be developed into a very workable policy.
Carbonite
Carbonite wrote:
I'm starting to like where this proposal is going. I have some suggestions that I'd like to throw out for feedback:
- AfD would be turned off for the first two weeks of the month (1st -14th).
- The second week of the month (8th-14th), all mainspace article creation
would be turned off.
- Starting on the 15th, Wikipedia would return to operating as usual (for
the rest of the month). I believe that the result of these changes would be to create a cycle in which more articles were developed into "real" articles rather than remaining substandard. It also cuts AfD's status to part-time. There probably would be a flood of nomination on the 15th of each month, but by this point every article would have had at least one full week to improve and likely closer to two weeks.
I like it. People insist on using AFD as an editorial tool ... let's go with that and really treat it as one.
Add to above: all AFDs to run fourteen days, not five.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Carbonite wrote:
I'm starting to like where this proposal is going. I have some suggestions that I'd like to throw out for feedback:
- AfD would be turned off for the first two weeks of the month (1st -14th).
- The second week of the month (8th-14th), all mainspace article creation
would be turned off.
- Starting on the 15th, Wikipedia would return to operating as usual (for
the rest of the month). I believe that the result of these changes would be to create a cycle in which more articles were developed into "real" articles rather than remaining substandard. It also cuts AfD's status to part-time. There probably would be a flood of nomination on the 15th of each month, but by this point every article would have had at least one full week to improve and likely closer to two weeks.
I like it. People insist on using AFD as an editorial tool ... let's go with that and really treat it as one.
Add to above: all AFDs to run fourteen days, not five.
I don't know if it will work, but at least it's an attempt at a constructive solution. Any antidote to the poisonous atmosphere is worth considering. I would also couple it with an easier Undeletion process. As long as deletion is a bitter process closure is understandably a welcome result for the deletionists. With a more relaxed process a deletion won't be seen as so much of a campaign, and a general consesnsus for deletion should be more easily achieved. This means that there will be a reduced desire for undeletion. Some articles will still fall through the cracks for various reasons, and we should be more willing to accept these as ordinarty mistakes that anybody can make.
Ec
On 12/10/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Gerard wrote: I don't know if it will work, but at least it's an attempt at a constructive solution. Any antidote to the poisonous atmosphere is worth considering. I would also couple it with an easier Undeletion process. As long as deletion is a bitter process closure is understandably a welcome result for the deletionists. With a more relaxed process a deletion won't be seen as so much of a campaign, and a general consesnsus for deletion should be more easily achieved. This means that there will be a reduced desire for undeletion. Some articles will still fall through the cracks for various reasons, and we should be more willing to accept these as ordinarty mistakes that anybody can make.
Ec
You wrote: "As long as deletion is a bitter process closure is understandably a welcome result for the deletionists. With a more relaxed process a deletion won't be seen as so much of a campaign, and a general consesnsus for deletion should be more easily achieved."
What has this got to do with deletionists? Anyone would be happy with a less tense atmosphere in a wiki. I don't see what that has to do with deletionism or inclusionism? You sound like deletionists want everything on AFD deleted all the time and it is exactly this kind of thing that's causing a poisonous atmosphere.
Perhaps there's a few indivuduals, but you can't generalize for ALL deletionists.
Mgm
Carbonite wrote:
I'm starting to like where this proposal is going. I have some suggestions that I'd like to throw out for feedback:
- AfD would be turned off for the first two weeks of the month (1st -14th).
During this time no nominations or "votes" are allowed. Any article not nominated by the last day of the previous month would have to wait until the 15th. Existing AfDs would continued to be closed. Speedy deletion criteria would still be in effect.
- The second week of the month (8th-14th), all mainspace article creation
would be turned off. This could be enforced through software by only allowing article creation by admins (and this would be strongly discouraged). Talk pages and pages in other namespaces could be created by all registered users.
I'm not so keen on this, because a) I don't always have complete control over which days and times I can do editing, and b) a routine type of cleanup is to cut portmanteau and oversized articles into several logical pieces. But then again I could use the time to upload more of my pic backlog (assuming commons lets me create the gallery pages for them...), or simply take a wikivacation because my eyes are bleeding from retagging thousands of fair-use pictures. :-)
If you want to incentivize, then just announce prizes ("most-improved in one week", "most stubs expanded past 500 words", etc).
Stan
On 12/11/05, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Carbonite wrote:
I'm starting to like where this proposal is going. I have some suggestions that I'd like to throw out for feedback:
- AfD would be turned off for the first two weeks of the month (1st -14th).
During this time no nominations or "votes" are allowed. Any article not nominated by the last day of the previous month would have to wait until the 15th. Existing AfDs would continued to be closed. Speedy deletion criteria would still be in effect.
- The second week of the month (8th-14th), all mainspace article creation
would be turned off. This could be enforced through software by only allowing article creation by admins (and this would be strongly discouraged). Talk pages and pages in other namespaces could be created by all registered users.
I'm not so keen on this, because a) I don't always have complete control over which days and times I can do editing, and b) a routine type of cleanup is to cut portmanteau and oversized articles into several logical pieces. But then again I could use the time to upload more of my pic backlog (assuming commons lets me create the gallery pages for them...), or simply take a wikivacation because my eyes are bleeding from retagging thousands of fair-use pictures. :-)
If you want to incentivize, then just announce prizes ("most-improved in one week", "most stubs expanded past 500 words", etc).
Stan
Those will only interest a limited number of people. Switching off article creation will be slightly noticable.
-- geni
If we do this, I know what I'm doing just BEFORE that week ... making stubs for all the new articles I want to create, so that I can then improve them ;)
-Matt
So this all started as a fantasy/joke of mine in IRC, but I want to say that so many people have responded favorably that I'm supportive of the concept.
One great reason to do all of this is to shake up the cobwebs in our thinking. A lot of our processes are fantastic, organically evolved over time, and shouldn't be changed. But they aren't all perfect and we need to always remain experimental -- it's a wiki after all.
David Gerard wrote:
OK. I suggest that some time soon (early January, say) we hold an Article Improvement Week.
- No new articles to be created.
- AFD is closed for business - no deletions, no nominations.
(Copyright violations, gross libel etc. can be zapped as usual.)
- You can still work on new stuff in your userspace, but please don't
move it to article space. (How or if to enforce this to be determined.)
A week should be long enough to get some effect and short enough not to frustrate people and make them go elsewhere because they want to write stuff (hence the userspace getout).
Effects I expect at the end of the week:
- Some article polishing.
- More people practiced in article polishing.
- A flood of new articles out of userspace. Hopefully better ones.
People will also treat this as "work on those new articles you were thinking about" week. That's fine too.
- A consequent flood of AFDs, but hopefully not as much because the
articles will have been worked on for a week!
Thoughts?
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Jimmy Wales wrote:
One great reason to do all of this is to shake up the cobwebs in our thinking. A lot of our processes are fantastic, organically evolved over time, and shouldn't be changed. But they aren't all perfect and we need to always remain experimental -- it's a wiki after all.
Yes. One thing that pisses me off about Wikipedia is the committee committees to have a vote on having a committee to vote to ascertain consensus on having a committee before you can actually bloody *do* anything.
(Which is one of the things I like about Uncyclopedia: blatant admin fascism! MUWAHAHAHAHA. Excuse me.)
I vaguely recall workplace studies where changing *anything* increased productivity - it wasn't the new setting, it was the fact of change.
So, experiment suggestions so far:
1. Switch off anon article creation - in progress. 2. Prefill text for new article creation. 3. Article Improvement Week. 4. Turn off AFD for (a week/a month/ever).
Any others I missed?
- d.
On 12/11/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
- Switch off anon article creation - in progress.
- Prefill text for new article creation.
- Article Improvement Week.
- Turn off AFD for (a week/a month/ever).
Any others I missed?
- d.
More fine tuneing af speedy aparently.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 12/11/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
- Switch off anon article creation - in progress.
- Prefill text for new article creation.
- Article Improvement Week.
- Turn off AFD for (a week/a month/ever).
Any others I missed?
More fine tuneing af speedy aparently.
Yeah. See if we can make it work without the letter codes. Deletion log review is fine, the speedy process appears to actually not be too bad in practice, it's having a deletion log you can't actually understand without a secret decoder ring that's problematic ...
- l,d.
G'day David,
So, experiment suggestions so far:
- Switch off anon article creation - in progress.
- Prefill text for new article creation.
- Article Improvement Week.
- Turn off AFD for (a week/a month/ever).
Any others I missed?
Well, there was geni's intriguingly bad "allow admins to delete anything" idea, which I suggest be expanded to "all admins are allowed to speedy anything they want, without possibility of undeletion and no repercussions". Perhaps we could run it for the same period that AfD is shutdown?
Cheers,
Mark Gallagher wrote:
Well, there was geni's intriguingly bad "allow admins to delete anything" idea, which I suggest be expanded to "all admins are allowed to speedy anything they want, without possibility of undeletion and no repercussions". Perhaps we could run it for the same period that AfD is shutdown?
*With* possibility of undeletion, and no repercussions. Mind you, I can imagine entire topics (every high school in the world) being subject to ongoing delete/undelete wars, and would be interested in the effects on the database ...
- d.
On 12/11/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
One great reason to do all of this is to shake up the cobwebs in our thinking. A lot of our processes are fantastic, organically evolved over time, and shouldn't be changed. But they aren't all perfect and we need to always remain experimental -- it's a wiki after all.
Yes. One thing that pisses me off about Wikipedia is the committee committees to have a vote on having a committee to vote to ascertain consensus on having a committee before you can actually bloody *do* anything.
(Which is one of the things I like about Uncyclopedia: blatant admin fascism! MUWAHAHAHAHA. Excuse me.)
I vaguely recall workplace studies where changing *anything* increased productivity - it wasn't the new setting, it was the fact of change.
So, experiment suggestions so far:
- Switch off anon article creation - in progress.
- Prefill text for new article creation.
- Article Improvement Week.
- Turn off AFD for (a week/a month/ever).
Any others I missed?
- d.
I proposed requring editors that aren't logged in to enter text into the comment field, when editing the article namespace. This would be done with the intention of extending it to all non-minor edits to the article namespace if the experiment succeeded.
In fact, of the 3 non-implemented experiments above, I think this one would be the least controversial.
Anthony
On 11/12/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I proposed requring editors that aren't logged in to enter text into the comment field, when editing the article namespace. This would be done with the intention of extending it to all non-minor edits to the article namespace if the experiment succeeded.
In fact, of the 3 non-implemented experiments above, I think this one would be the least controversial.
I'd sign up to something that /made/ me leave an edit summary all the time... perhaps a configurable option for logged-in users as a corrollary?
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On 12/11/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/12/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I proposed requring editors that aren't logged in to enter text into the comment field, when editing the article namespace. This would be done with the intention of extending it to all non-minor edits to the article namespace if the experiment succeeded.
In fact, of the 3 non-implemented experiments above, I think this one would be the least controversial.
I'd sign up to something that /made/ me leave an edit summary all the time... perhaps a configurable option for logged-in users as a corrollary?
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Logged-in users can always set "mark edits minor by default".
It's more controversial for logged-in users though, even if minor edits don't count, which is why my proposal is to test it out on those without accounts first. Personally I think it's worth it. I agree with the others who say that Wikipedia should focus on quality rather than quantity (though I see this somewhat differently than some of them).
Anthony
"Andrew Gray" shimgray@gmail.com wrote in message news:f3fedb0d0512110809j7a731d4by@mail.gmail.com... [snip]
I'd sign up to something that /made/ me leave an edit summary all the time... perhaps a configurable option for logged-in users as a corrollary?
If you're using the monobook skin, there's a little Javascript extension which checks the edit summary and prompts you if you leave it blank...it can even cope with the /* commented out section headers */.
I originally got it from [[User:ABCD/monobook.js]]: don't know if it's been updated recently: you can see my version in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Phil_Boswell/monobook.js.
HTH HAND
Phil Boswell wrote:
"Andrew Gray" shimgray@gmail.com wrote in message news:f3fedb0d0512110809j7a731d4by@mail.gmail.com... [snip]
I'd sign up to something that /made/ me leave an edit summary all the time... perhaps a configurable option for logged-in users as a corrollary?
If you're using the monobook skin, there's a little Javascript extension which checks the edit summary and prompts you if you leave it blank...it can even cope with the /* commented out section headers */.
I originally got it from [[User:ABCD/monobook.js]]: don't know if it's been updated recently: you can see my version in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Phil_Boswell/monobook.js.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts/Forc...
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I proposed requring editors that aren't logged in to enter text into the comment field, when editing the article namespace. This would be done with the intention of extending it to all non-minor edits to the article namespace if the experiment succeeded.
In fact, of the 3 non-implemented experiments above, I think this one would be the least controversial.
I disagree on this one. As a frequent Recent Changes patroller, using a combination of CoolCat's IRC bot, CDVF and Special:Recentchanges, I have come to appreciate the predictability of a lot of the vandals: no edit summary, using an IP. Of course, I glance over every edit summary too, but in my experience, usually the people using edit summaries are editing 'in good faith'.
Forcing people to leave an edit summary for all non-minor edits, will in my view result in one or more of the following results:
1. Non-sense comments: "sldkjlsdfj" or "." 2. Abusive comments in edit summaries 3. People marking all their edits as minor, to avoid having to leave an edit summary.
That way, vandalism will be harder to spot and there will be more 'noise' in the edit histories.
I think an option that forces you to leave an edit summary, which can be switched on in the preferences, would be better: if you stimulate people using that, you'll have more quality edit summaries and not an increase in nonsense and abusive summaries.
Regards, JoanneB
On 12/11/05, JoanneB joannebennaoj@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I proposed requring editors that aren't logged in to enter text into the comment field, when editing the article namespace. This would be done with the intention of extending it to all non-minor edits to the article namespace if the experiment succeeded.
In fact, of the 3 non-implemented experiments above, I think this one would be the least controversial.
I disagree on this one. As a frequent Recent Changes patroller, using a combination of CoolCat's IRC bot, CDVF and Special:Recentchanges, I have come to appreciate the predictability of a lot of the vandals: no edit summary, using an IP. Of course, I glance over every edit summary too, but in my experience, usually the people using edit summaries are editing 'in good faith'.
Forcing people to leave an edit summary for all non-minor edits, will in my view result in one or more of the following results:
- Non-sense comments: "sldkjlsdfj" or "."
- Abusive comments in edit summaries
- People marking all their edits as minor, to avoid having to leave an edit
summary.
That way, vandalism will be harder to spot and there will be more 'noise' in the edit histories.
Hmm. Wouldn't 1 and 2 make vandalism *easier* to spot? Or do you think a significant number of good editors would make nonsense comments or even abusive ones?
As for 3, the part I throught was pretty non-controversial would be limited to editors who weren't logged in, and who therefore can't mark edits as minor anyway.
I guess I'll have to look at recent changes more closely. I got the sense that the majority of edits by IP users who left no edit summary were good ones. If you're saying that good editors who aren't logged in already leave edit summaries, then I guess forcing everyone to leave them wouldn't accomplish anything.
I think an option that forces you to leave an edit summary, which can be switched on in the preferences, would be better: if you stimulate people using that, you'll have more quality edit summaries and not an increase in nonsense and abusive summaries.
Regards, JoanneB
Well, my initial proposal was only to apply to users that weren't logged in, so they don't have a preferences. I'm more skeptical about whether or not it's a good idea for all users. In fact, you're starting to convince me it actually isn't.
I'd only want the experiment to affect users that weren't logged in, though. Any extension beyond that would take further discussion and research first.
Anthony
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Gerard wrote:
So, experiment suggestions so far:
- Switch off anon article creation - in progress. 2. Prefill text
for new article creation. 3. Article Improvement Week. 4. Turn off AFD for (a week/a month/ever).
Any others I missed?
Pure wiki deletion. :-) I know it has become a joke for me to insert that into every conversation now, but as long as you're going to be turning off AFD for a certain amount of time, you could experiment with replacements.
- -Ryan
1. Switch off anon article creation - in progress. 2. Prefill text for new article creation. 3. Article Improvement Week. 4. Turn off AFD for (a week/a month/ever). 5. Give admins more freedom over deletion. 6. Require "anons" to comment when editing. 7. Pure Wiki Deletion 8. Speedy delete unsourced articles.
8 was another proposal I made. Any article which was created in the last 48 hours and contains no external references whatsoever is a candidate for speedy deletion.
Anthony
On 12/11/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Gerard wrote:
So, experiment suggestions so far:
- Switch off anon article creation - in progress. 2. Prefill text
for new article creation. 3. Article Improvement Week. 4. Turn off AFD for (a week/a month/ever).
Any others I missed?
Pure wiki deletion. :-) I know it has become a joke for me to insert that into every conversation now, but as long as you're going to be turning off AFD for a certain amount of time, you could experiment with replacements.
- -Ryan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDnD6v6MKb8lYmCtcRAqbtAKC0vVWL4Fo7hguB83RNCkvPdfBxXwCgmN7m JmvR53Any8Kv/NjlWX2w+n0= =fgM2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/11/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
- Speedy delete unsourced articles.
8 was another proposal I made. Any article which was created in the last 48 hours and contains no external references whatsoever is a candidate for speedy deletion.
I think this would be a *bad* idea. I usually create stubs with an external reference at least - simply to justify them not being deleted, but not always. As always, we should be encouraging good practice, not coming down heavy-handedly on people who haven't yet had the time/experience to do something perfectly.
Cormac
On 12/11/05, Cormac Lawler cormaggio@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/11/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
- Speedy delete unsourced articles.
8 was another proposal I made. Any article which was created in the last 48 hours and contains no external references whatsoever is a candidate for speedy deletion.
I think this would be a *bad* idea. I usually create stubs with an external reference at least - simply to justify them not being deleted, but not always.
Is it so hard to request that you start doing it always?
As always, we should be encouraging good practice, not coming down heavy-handedly on people who haven't yet had the time/experience to do something perfectly.
Cormac
We're not coming down heavy-handedly on people. The fact that the article is deleted should in no way be taken personally.
New article creation *is* somewhat of a bigger deal than merely editing. We've already turned it off for users that aren't logged in, and some are suggesting that we should turn it off for users that are new, or that we should turn it off altogether for periods of time.
If someone wants to create a new article, that's fine, but asking that they simply locate a single source first is just not a big deal. I've added that the user should be informed of this type of deletion on his or her user talk page. If it was just a simple mistake, the page can be recreated.
Obviously an admin shouldn't be deleting an article when it's just as easy to just find the source themselves. I don't think this needs to be written into the rules, I trust admins to not be that lazy. But at the same time, the onus of finding the source should generally be on the person adding the information.
Anthony
On 12/11/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/11/05, Cormac Lawler cormaggio@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/11/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
- Speedy delete unsourced articles.
8 was another proposal I made. Any article which was created in the last 48 hours and contains no external references whatsoever is a candidate for speedy deletion.
I think this would be a *bad* idea. I usually create stubs with an external reference at least - simply to justify them not being deleted, but not always.
Is it so hard to request that you start doing it always?
As always, we should be encouraging good practice, not coming down heavy-handedly on people who haven't yet had the time/experience to do something perfectly.
Cormac
We're not coming down heavy-handedly on people. The fact that the article is deleted should in no way be taken personally.
New article creation *is* somewhat of a bigger deal than merely editing. We've already turned it off for users that aren't logged in, and some are suggesting that we should turn it off for users that are new, or that we should turn it off altogether for periods of time.
If someone wants to create a new article, that's fine, but asking that they simply locate a single source first is just not a big deal. I've added that the user should be informed of this type of deletion on his or her user talk page. If it was just a simple mistake, the page can be recreated.
Obviously an admin shouldn't be deleting an article when it's just as easy to just find the source themselves. I don't think this needs to be written into the rules, I trust admins to not be that lazy. But at the same time, the onus of finding the source should generally be on the person adding the information.
Anthony
Yes, but the harder we make it for people to start their first article, the less inviting we are, and the less wiki we become. Regardless of the recent proposals that temper growth of Wikipedia, we *are* still a wiki, with the (I hope) wiki philosophy that most things will generally tend to improve in the long run. Just to repeat the point that we should *encourage* people to do good work, not force them. Add {{unreferenced}}, don't speedy delete. There's a learning curve to wiki editing and encyclopedia writing.
Cormac
On 12/11/05, Cormac Lawler cormaggio@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/11/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote: Yes, but the harder we make it for people to start their first article, the less inviting we are, and the less wiki we become.
I take your second point first. Being less wiki is not necessarily a bad thing. Yes, being a wiki has taken us far, and making radical changes to our processes without thinking about it first is not a good idea. But we're not wiki just for the sake of being wiki. (In fact, we've already moved quite far from the original wiki principles, to the point where Sunir Shah, one of the early proponents of wikis, claims that Wikipedia is not a wiki.)
Your first point is that by making things harder we are less inviting. I think this is a more reasonable concern, but it still needs to be kept in balance. The fact is that typing in what source you happened to use usually takes about 5 seconds. On the other hand, someone who is reviewing the article you created would probably have to take at least a minute to find a source, and that assumes a good source can be found with a simple google search.
Like you, I too have created articles without including any references. But if I knew that chances were high my article was going to be deleted if I did so, I would have gladly spent the few seconds to list my source. Do you really think the extra few seconds is going to discourage a user from continuing to contribute?
Regardless of the recent proposals that temper growth of Wikipedia, we *are* still a wiki, with the (I hope) wiki philosophy that most things will generally tend to improve in the long run.
That things will improve in the long run is a given. The question is what do we want in the mean time.
Just to repeat the point that we should *encourage* people to do good work, not force them.
We're not forcing people to do good work. We're just deleting stuff which someone added without taking a few extra moments to follow the rules. It's the same as what happens when someone adds an image without a source.
Add {{unreferenced}}, don't speedy delete. There's a learning curve to wiki editing and encyclopedia writing.
Cormac
I'd be fine with just adding {{unreferenced}} if {{unreferenced}} included a statement that the article will be deleted if no source is added within 24 hours. Is that an adequete compromise?
Yes, there's a learning curve. Creating a new article is probably something you should save until you're further along the learning curve. But even if it isn't, I don't see the big deal. Your article gets deleted, you get a note on your talk page teaching you how to create a new article, and if you write back to someone (such as the admin who wrote on your talk page) telling them your source, your article gets restored. You've learned something and Wikipedia has improved in the process. All without relying on someone hunting down a source which the original submitter is in a much better position of providing.
But hey, the 24 hour thing seems like a good compromise. Then *anyone* has 24 hours to hunt down a source. And this would only be used for new articles, say ones created within 48 hours of the tag being added, or ones created after a certain date. Again, this is similar to what we did with images. Tagging is the first stage, but just tagging isn't a solution.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I'd be fine with just adding {{unreferenced}} if {{unreferenced}} included a statement that the article will be deleted if no source is added within 24 hours. Is that an adequete compromise?
What purpose does deleting the article within 24 hours serve? Wikipedia is a project to eventually produce an encyclopedia; not to produce a perfect one by some deadline. The information should only be deleted if it is *unverifiable* (by reasonable means, anyway), not only because nobody has bothered to try to verify it yet. In the latter case it should be marked as unverified, and await either an expansion and verification or eventual decision that it cannot be verified and deletion. Removing information that could be verified by hasn't yet would be a net harm to the project's goal of producing a quality encyclopedia in the long run.
-Mark
On 12/11/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I'd be fine with just adding {{unreferenced}} if {{unreferenced}} included a statement that the article will be deleted if no source is added within 24 hours. Is that an adequete compromise?
What purpose does deleting the article within 24 hours serve?
It serves multiple purposes. It helps eliminate false information from the encyclopedia. It saves new page patrollers and others time doing research from scratch. And probably most importantly, it provides an incentive to add references.
What purpose does deleting images with no source provide? It's pretty much all the same things.
Wikipedia is a project to eventually produce an encyclopedia; not to produce a perfect one by some deadline. The information should only be deleted if it is *unverifiable* (by reasonable means, anyway), not only because nobody has bothered to try to verify it yet. In the latter case it should be marked as unverified, and await either an expansion and verification or eventual decision that it cannot be verified and deletion. Removing information that could be verified by hasn't yet would be a net harm to the project's goal of producing a quality encyclopedia in the long run.
-Mark
I don't see why. The article is still there, it isn't actually deleted, it's just hidden from the view of non-admins. I'd prefer it if non-admins could see the text too, but a different argument.
In my opinion it is never acceptable to keep false information in the article namespace. There are places where eventualism is acceptable, but presenting false information as true information is not one of them.
Oh well, whatever. Two separate people seem honestly and irreparably opposed to the idea. I'll just drop it.
Anthony
On 12/11/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
In my opinion it is never acceptable to keep false information in the article namespace. There are places where eventualism is acceptable, but presenting false information as true information is not one of them.
Oh well, whatever. Two separate people seem honestly and irreparably opposed to the idea. I'll just drop it.
I agree with you, but with one caveat. It shouldn't be removed, just marked as being unverified. If it is marked as such, Wikipedia specifically abdicates all responsibility for the contents. This way, the information is still available so *anyone* can verify it, admin or not.
-- Sam
On 12/11/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/11/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
In my opinion it is never acceptable to keep false information in the article namespace. There are places where eventualism is acceptable, but presenting false information as true information is not one of them.
Oh well, whatever. Two separate people seem honestly and irreparably opposed to the idea. I'll just drop it.
I agree with you, but with one caveat. It shouldn't be removed, just marked as being unverified. If it is marked as such, Wikipedia specifically abdicates all responsibility for the contents. This way, the information is still available so *anyone* can verify it, admin or not.
-- Sam
For some reason I see a huge difference between leaving false information in and putting a disclaimer at the top and moving the information to the talk page. Doing the latter still leaves the information available so anyone can verify it.
Unfortunately, talk pages of deleted articles are candidates for speedy deletion. But then again, it really doesn't matter, because history only undeletion can be performed by any admin without a vote. So if any user wants to verify it, admin or not, just look up the title in google, write a couple sentences, and request history only undeletion. Or, alternatively, ask an admin to give you the text of the article. Either way it's not *that* big of a deal, though I do feel things would be better if you didn't have to go through that step.
I'm gonna say one more thing (for this message), and that's that the current policy already kind of supports this. Anything that isn't verified can be moved to the talk page, a page which contains no content is a CSD, and a talk page of a deleted page is itself a CSD.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
For some reason I see a huge difference between leaving false
information in and putting a disclaimer at the top and moving the information to the talk page. Doing the latter still leaves the information available so anyone can verify it.
There is also a big difference between unsourced information and false information. Just because it's unsourced does not mean that it is false.
Ec
Sam Korn wrote:
On 12/11/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
In my opinion it is never acceptable to keep false information in the article namespace. There are places where eventualism is acceptable, but presenting false information as true information is not one of them. Oh well, whatever. Two separate people seem honestly and irreparably opposed to the idea. I'll just drop it.
I agree with you, but with one caveat. It shouldn't be removed, just marked as being unverified. If it is marked as such, Wikipedia specifically abdicates all responsibility for the contents. This way, the information is still available so *anyone* can verify it, admin or not.
The {{unreferenced}} tag pretty much puts this message across, unless the reader is too stupid to breathe without instructions.
- d.
On 12/12/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
The {{unreferenced}} tag pretty much puts this message across, unless the reader is too stupid to breathe without instructions.
That's a big unless... ;=)
-- Sam
On 12/12/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Sam Korn wrote:
On 12/11/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
In my opinion it is never acceptable to keep false information in the article namespace. There are places where eventualism is acceptable, but presenting false information as true information is not one of them. Oh well, whatever. Two separate people seem honestly and irreparably opposed to the idea. I'll just drop it.
I agree with you, but with one caveat. It shouldn't be removed, just marked as being unverified. If it is marked as such, Wikipedia specifically abdicates all responsibility for the contents. This way, the information is still available so *anyone* can verify it, admin or not.
The {{unreferenced}} tag pretty much puts this message across, unless the reader is too stupid to breathe without instructions.
- d.
Either the information is easy to be verified, and we should do that, or it isn't, and we should remove it until someone verifies it. Either way I don't see the point of adding a tag.
I'm very afraid that this solution is going to lead to thousands of articles with annoying little self-reference tags on them. And then, what does it mean if an article *doesn't* have this tag? Are we saying that article *has* been verified?
I can see it now: "This Buckinghamshire location article does not cite its references or sources. You can help Wikipedia by including appropriate citations." What's next? "This article related to broadcasting in Singapore has spelling mistakes. You can help Wikipedia by fixing the spelling."
Fortunately, Magnus Manske is working on task management support. It's my understanding that it's made for exactly this sort of thing.
Anthony
On 12/12/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I can see it now: "This Buckinghamshire location article does not cite its references or sources. You can help Wikipedia by including appropriate citations." What's next? "This article related to broadcasting in Singapore has spelling mistakes. You can help Wikipedia by fixing the spelling."
Actually, we already have this. It's the {{copyedit}} tag, and it has proven rather useful to editors who do not speak English as a foreign language to draw attention to articles they need to have checked for spelling, punctuation and grammar. I think this isn't a terrible analogy for the {{cleanup-verified}} tag, which also already exists and I have been using for some time. If an article subject is out of my area of expertise for verification, or I simply don't have the time, I will use this tag to draw attention to the problem.
Really, the problem of unsourced material on Wikipedia is serious, so I don't think we should look on potential solutions with sarcasm and disdain.
Ryan
On 12/12/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I can see it now: "This Buckinghamshire location article does not cite its references or sources. You can help Wikipedia by including appropriate citations." What's next? "This article related to broadcasting in Singapore has spelling mistakes. You can help Wikipedia by fixing the spelling."
Actually, we already have this. It's the {{copyedit}} tag, and it has proven rather useful to editors who do not speak English as a foreign language to draw attention to articles they need to have checked for spelling, punctuation and grammar. I think this isn't a terrible analogy for the {{cleanup-verified}} tag, which also already exists and I have been using for some time. If an article subject is out of my area of expertise for verification, or I simply don't have the time, I will use this tag to draw attention to the problem.
Really, the problem of unsourced material on Wikipedia is serious, so I don't think we should look on potential solutions with sarcasm and disdain.
Ryan
If someone cares to propose a potential solution, I won't be sarcastic about it.
Anthony
On 12/12/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
If someone cares to propose a potential solution, I won't be sarcastic about it.
Well, {{cleanup-verify}} isn't a solution, but I think it helps, and it would be part of any effective solution.
Ryan
On 12/12/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
If someone cares to propose a potential solution, I won't be sarcastic about it.
Well, {{cleanup-verify}} isn't a solution, but I think it helps, and it would be part of any effective solution.
Ryan
Already 1000 listed there. I wonder, are there any articles that *don't* qualify? [[Westboro Baptist Church]] has the tag, and it has 33 references!
BTW, the "Buckinghamshire location article" and "article related to broadcasting in Singapore" quotes were real examples from cleanup tags. So yeah, it was sarcasm, but it was serious sarcasm.
Anthony
Everyone, I hope, recognizes that turning off article creation for a week would eliminate one of Wikipedia's well-recognized remarkable successes; that is, responding quickly and informatively to breaking news of import, from September 11 to the Indonesian tsunami to Nobel Prize winners.
--- The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Everyone, I hope, recognizes that turning off article creation for a week would eliminate one of
Wikipedia's well-recognized remarkable
successes; that is, responding quickly and informatively to breaking news of import, from
September 11 to the Indonesian
tsunami to Nobel Prize winners.
Yes, but its really just practice for next year's schedules "lets turn off the internet day." Anyone else hear about that?
Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 13/12/05, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Yes, but its really just practice for next year's schedules "lets turn off the internet day." Anyone else hear about that?
End of March, so we can repaint Usenet, right?
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On 12/12/05, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Everyone, I hope, recognizes that turning off article creation for a week would eliminate one of Wikipedia's well-recognized remarkable successes; that is, responding quickly and informatively to breaking news of import, from September 11 to the Indonesian tsunami to Nobel Prize winners.
This could be great for Wikinews, which is where breaking news of import should go nowadays anyway (especially if Wikipedia is going to just repeat false information without attribution, like it did in the [[Jean Charles de Menezes]] article)..
Anthony
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Already 1000 listed there. I wonder, are there any articles that
*don't* qualify? [[Westboro Baptist Church]] has the tag, and it has 33 references!
BTW, the "Buckinghamshire location article" and "article related to broadcasting in Singapore" quotes were real examples from cleanup tags. So yeah, it was sarcasm, but it was serious sarcasm.
Anthony
If 1000 are listed there, then that will give you an idea of the magnitude of the problem. If you find the tag somewhere it doesn't belong, remove it. I'm not even sure what we are discussing here.
Ryan
On 12/13/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Already 1000 listed there. I wonder, are there any articles that
*don't* qualify? [[Westboro Baptist Church]] has the tag, and it has 33 references!
BTW, the "Buckinghamshire location article" and "article related to broadcasting in Singapore" quotes were real examples from cleanup tags. So yeah, it was sarcasm, but it was serious sarcasm.
Anthony
If 1000 are listed there, then that will give you an idea of the magnitude of the problem. If you find the tag somewhere it doesn't belong, remove it. I'm not even sure what we are discussing here.
Ryan
I'm aware of the magnitude of the problem. That's why I'm presenting a proposal of how to start fixing it. Yes, there are lots of articles without any source already in Wikipedia. Let's stop adding new ones.
As for whether or not the tag belongs, I don't know if it belongs, because the way the tag is phrased it is fairly meaningless. "This article contains information that has not been verified and thus might not be reliable." I'm sure [[Westboro Baptist Church]] does contain some such information. In fact, I bet at least 95% of the articles in the encyclopedia do, if not more. However, the tag doesn't say which information is not verified, so I can't even tell whether or not the tag is correct, let alone know how to resolve the problem.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
In my opinion it is never acceptable to keep false information in the article namespace. There are places where eventualism is acceptable, but presenting false information as true information is not one of them.
Known to be false information, yes. Unverified information is another beast---a large proportion of our mathematical articles are currently unreferenced, but almost certainly correct (and can be easily verified by anyone knowledgeable in the field, or with access to an intro-level textbook).
If it's an unverified half-sentence stub, perhaps we don't lose much by simply deleting it. If it's a good article that just needs some references added, though, we move backwards by deleting it and forcing someone later to start from scratch.
-Mark
On 12/11/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
In my opinion it is never acceptable to keep false information in the article namespace. There are places where eventualism is acceptable, but presenting false information as true information is not one of them.
Known to be false information, yes. Unverified information is another beast---a large proportion of our mathematical articles are currently unreferenced, but almost certainly correct (and can be easily verified by anyone knowledgeable in the field, or with access to an intro-level textbook).
If it's an unverified half-sentence stub, perhaps we don't lose much by simply deleting it. If it's a good article that just needs some references added, though, we move backwards by deleting it and forcing someone later to start from scratch.
-Mark
Well, I think I've made it abundantly clear I disagree. Those mathematical articles should all be referenced. The person who is in the best position to do that is the original author. Sure, we can grandfather these old ones in, but going forward I don't see why we can't just put in this information from the beginning. (And no, if you make it optional, people aren't going to do it.)
Articles can always be undeleted. "Forcing someone" to drop a note on an admin page that you'd like a particular article undeleted so you can add references to it is just not that significant (especially compared to sitting on AFD for 5 days). And like I said before, I'd prefer that anyone can see this deleted text without bugging an admin anyway.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Well, I think I've made it abundantly clear I disagree. Those mathematical articles should all be referenced. The person who is in the best position to do that is the original author.
For most of them, the original author is no better placed to reference them than anyone else, because they're results that appear in standard textbooks. I could singlehandedly "reference" most of the linear algebra articles, for example, just by copy/pasting the reference list from [[linear algebra]] to the end of every one. But in cases where something is a standard result in elementary textbooks, I don't see what advantage actually listing some arbitrarily chosen textbook gives the reader.
-Mark
On 12/11/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
I could singlehandedly "reference" most of the linear algebra articles, for example, just by copy/pasting the reference list from [[linear algebra]] to the end of every one. But in cases where something is a standard result in elementary textbooks, I don't see what advantage actually listing some arbitrarily chosen textbook gives the reader.
It gives the reader a starting point for further research, and at least
demonstrates that the information wasn't pulled out of a hat.
Spangineer/Nathaniel
On 12/11/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Well, I think I've made it abundantly clear I disagree. Those mathematical articles should all be referenced. The person who is in the best position to do that is the original author.
For most of them, the original author is no better placed to reference them than anyone else, because they're results that appear in standard textbooks. I could singlehandedly "reference" most of the linear algebra articles, for example, just by copy/pasting the reference list from [[linear algebra]] to the end of every one. But in cases where something is a standard result in elementary textbooks, I don't see what advantage actually listing some arbitrarily chosen textbook gives the reader.
-Mark
Hmm, I've tried to think of an article that this would apply to, especially one which we haven't already written, and I really can't come up with one. Couldn't the author just reference the textbook that she actually used? For a strawman, let's take [[Myhill–Nerode theorem]]. I assume you didn't start that article from memory. You did use a source, right? Now given a few minutes of searching on Google print I could probably come up with a source to verify that information, but at the same time you could much more easily simply list the book you actually used.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
For a strawman, let's take [[Myhill–Nerode theorem]]. I assume you didn't start that article from memory. You did use a source, right? Now given a few minutes of searching on Google print I could probably come up with a source to verify that information, but at the same time you could much more easily simply list the book you actually used.
I did in fact start it from memory, since it's a standard result that anyone who's taken a theory of computation class would be familiar with. I could retroactively give a source, but any theory of computation book will have it. The interested reader would be best served by consulting whatever book they find easiest to access, rather than having me pick one of them and tell them to use that specific one. (Of course, in things that are only in a few books, or treated significantly differently by different authors, giving the specific reference makes more sense.)
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
For a strawman, let's take [[Myhill–Nerode theorem]]. I assume you didn't start that article from memory. You did use a source, right? Now given a few minutes of searching on Google print I could probably come up with a source to verify that information, but at the same time you could much more easily simply list the book you actually used.
I did in fact start it from memory, since it's a standard result that anyone who's taken a theory of computation class would be familiar with. I could retroactively give a source, but any theory of computation book will have it. The interested reader would be best served by consulting whatever book they find easiest to access, rather than having me pick one of them and tell them to use that specific one. (Of course, in things that are only in a few books, or treated significantly differently by different authors, giving the specific reference makes more sense.)
Is there one text that is regarded as *the* text, or maybe a couple? That would be the one to use.
- d.
Delirium wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Well, I think I've made it abundantly clear I disagree. Those mathematical articles should all be referenced. The person who is in the best position to do that is the original author.
For most of them, the original author is no better placed to reference them than anyone else, because they're results that appear in standard textbooks. I could singlehandedly "reference" most of the linear algebra articles, for example, just by copy/pasting the reference list from [[linear algebra]] to the end of every one. But in cases where something is a standard result in elementary textbooks, I don't see what advantage actually listing some arbitrarily chosen textbook gives the reader.
Sourcing standards need to vary from one topic to the next, or according to the nature of the materials. Anything that could libel a living person needs a much stricter standard than basic textbook math.
Ec
Delirium wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Well, I think I've made it abundantly clear I disagree. Those mathematical articles should all be referenced. The person who is in the best position to do that is the original author.
For most of them, the original author is no better placed to reference them than anyone else, because they're results that appear in standard textbooks. I could singlehandedly "reference" most of the linear algebra articles, for example, just by copy/pasting the reference list from [[linear algebra]] to the end of every one. But in cases where something is a standard result in elementary textbooks, I don't see what advantage actually listing some arbitrarily chosen textbook gives the reader.
It helps a reader who comes through some path other than the main article. What I usually do is to use the general reference and add specific relevant page numbers. If one has multiple possible sources, then pick just one or two that have the best individual concept descriptions. Readers will very much appreciate getting the direct connection, and it also helps future editors when the general references happen to differ in their detailed treatment of a specific concept - there have been any number of minor edit fights that get started because different references say different things.
I think it would be an acceptable bandaid to have a "References" section saying "See [[linear algebra#References]]".
Stan
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Well, I think I've made it abundantly clear I disagree. Those
mathematical articles should all be referenced. The person who is in the best position to do that is the original author. Sure, we can grandfather these old ones in, but going forward I don't see why we can't just put in this information from the beginning. (And no, if you make it optional, people aren't going to do it.)
Articles can always be undeleted. "Forcing someone" to drop a note on an admin page that you'd like a particular article undeleted so you can add references to it is just not that significant (especially compared to sitting on AFD for 5 days). And like I said before, I'd prefer that anyone can see this deleted text without bugging an admin anyway.
It seems totally inconsistent to say that a person can always ask for an undeletion, but then preferring that the admins not need to be bugged with the task. If they are simply tagged nobody will need to bug the admins to do extra work.
Ec
Jimmy Wales wrote:
So this all started as a fantasy/joke of mine in IRC, but I want to say that so many people have responded favorably that I'm supportive of the concept.
One great reason to do all of this is to shake up the cobwebs in our thinking. A lot of our processes are fantastic, organically evolved over time, and shouldn't be changed. But they aren't all perfect and we need to always remain experimental -- it's a wiki after all.
That's no excuse for doing things that there is a *very* strong consensus against.
-Mark
On 12/10/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Allow article creation in people's userspace. Then at the end of the month the articles might not suck.
By George, I think he's got it!
Brilliant. Really, really fucking brilliant! I love it when people express radical and free ideas which wont ever be tried unless by undemocratic decree.
The only problem with it is that AFD people are are there precisely because they are neither good article progenitors nor good article editors. That's why we call them "Deletionists" --because that's just what they do. I attach no value judgement to the name of "Deletionist" other than any pre-concieved social prejudice that values creation over destruction.
Ergo, Creativity needs a mirror in Destruction --taking away such a major function will mean that those who have over time been driven to AFD (whatever meaning one may give to "driven") will take their skills of destruction to articles -- destructive reverts, rollbacks, cutting etc.
All of which can be good--dont get me wrong--and certainly putting doing these in balance is the best kind of approach. But as they say in Go, a masterful player will see the difference between a good move and a bad one as like 'the difference between a feather and a cinder block.' Not known for their feather-sensitive sublety --Deletionists need somewhere to go to do what it is they do.
Stevertigo
--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Keith Old wrote:
On 12/10/05, Daniel P. B. Smith
wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
How about this for an experiment: turn off article
creation _and_
deletion for a while? Freeze the table of contents
(not that we have
one)... So that all anyone could possibly do is to edit
existing articles?
It would force everyone to pay attention to the
articles that exist
already, and with 857,833 of them you'd think
people could find
something worth their attention. With deletion being impossible, AfD would become
unnecessary... as
would DRV. So, that should make one faction happy.
On the other hand,
there would be no opportunity to add subtrivial
topics. (Or trivial
topics, or significant topics). That should make
another faction happy.
On the other hand, you could make both groups
unhappy as there are plenty of
topics that we don't have articles that are worthy
of articles.
Allow article creation in people's userspace. Then at the end of the month the articles might not suck.
- d.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 12/10/05, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Brilliant. Really, really fucking brilliant! I love it when people express radical and free ideas which wont ever be tried unless by undemocratic decree.
The only problem with it is that AFD people are are there precisely because they are neither good article progenitors nor good article editors. That's why we call them "Deletionists" --because that's just what they do. I attach no value judgement to the name of "Deletionist" other than any pre-concieved social prejudice that values creation over destruction.
Ergo, Creativity needs a mirror in Destruction --taking away such a major function will mean that those who have over time been driven to AFD (whatever meaning one may give to "driven") will take their skills of destruction to articles -- destructive reverts, rollbacks, cutting etc.
All of which can be good--dont get me wrong--and certainly putting doing these in balance is the best kind of approach. But as they say in Go, a masterful player will see the difference between a good move and a bad one as like 'the difference between a feather and a cinder block.' Not known for their feather-sensitive sublety --Deletionists need somewhere to go to do what it is they do.
Stevertigo
Blameing the deletionists. Not logical.
133 Inclusionists http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians/Membe...
94 Deletionists
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Deletionist_Wikipedians
Deletion requires a 2/3s majority. There is no logical way that the deletionists should be able to win against the inclusionists.
-- geni
On 12/10/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/10/05, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Brilliant. Really, really fucking brilliant! I love it when people express radical and free ideas which wont ever be tried unless by undemocratic decree.
The only problem with it is that AFD people are are there precisely because they are neither good article progenitors nor good article editors. That's why we call them "Deletionists" --because that's just what they do. I attach no value judgement to the name of "Deletionist" other than any pre-concieved social prejudice that values creation over destruction.
Ergo, Creativity needs a mirror in Destruction --taking away such a major function will mean that those who have over time been driven to AFD (whatever meaning one may give to "driven") will take their skills of destruction to articles -- destructive reverts, rollbacks, cutting etc.
All of which can be good--dont get me wrong--and certainly putting doing these in balance is the best kind of approach. But as they say in Go, a masterful player will see the difference between a good move and a bad one as like 'the difference between a feather and a cinder block.' Not known for their feather-sensitive sublety --Deletionists need somewhere to go to do what it is they do.
Stevertigo
Blameing the deletionists. Not logical.
133 Inclusionists http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians/Membe...
94 Deletionists
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Deletionist_Wikipedians
Deletion requires a 2/3s majority. There is no logical way that the deletionists should be able to win against the inclusionists.
Not all people who subscribe to either view are in those associations. Anyway. No one can "win" because there's no contest, at least there shouldn't be.
And saying that people on AFD "are there precisely because they are neither good article progenitors nor good article editors." is something I consider inflammatory. I visit AFD on a regular basis myself, and while I suck at article creation by my own admission, I think I'm a pretty good editor. What you did here was a sweeping generalization with nothing to back it up.
Another one of the things I pride myself on is being careful when it comes to creation. I may not create much articles, but the ones I do make NEVER face deletion because I make sure they indicate notability and have sufficient reliable references. AFD wouldn't even be as overcrowded as it is now if everyone did the same.
Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Another one of the things I pride myself on is being careful when it comes to creation. I may not create much articles, but the ones I do make NEVER face deletion because I make sure they indicate notability and have sufficient reliable references. AFD wouldn't even be as overcrowded as it is now if everyone did the same.
Any thoughts on my preloaded new article template idea? It's just wikitext, so regulars could do what they liked, but newbies will see a clear indication of what we expect in an article.
- d.
David,
I think that the idea is worth pursuing with one minor suggestion that external links be changed to external references.
Links should be added only if the site has been used as a source in preparing the articles or if they provide a valuable resource for the reader to find out more about the topic.
Regards
Keith Old
Keith Old User:Capitalistroadster On 12/11/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Another one of the things I pride myself on is being careful when it
comes to creation. I may not create much articles, but the ones I do make NEVER face deletion because I make sure they indicate notability and have sufficient reliable references. AFD wouldn't even be as overcrowded as it is now if everyone did the same.
Any thoughts on my preloaded new article template idea? It's just wikitext, so regulars could do what they liked, but newbies will see a clear indication of what we expect in an article.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Then just call it "references". Newbies are sure to mix up external links with references if you are calling them "external references". 99.9% of them are external anyway unless they are from other Wikipedia articles in which case the original sources need to be copied over as well anyway.
Mgm
On 12/10/05, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
David,
I think that the idea is worth pursuing with one minor suggestion that external links be changed to external references.
Links should be added only if the site has been used as a source in preparing the articles or if they provide a valuable resource for the reader to find out more about the topic.
Regards
Keith Old
Keith Old User:Capitalistroadster On 12/11/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Another one of the things I pride myself on is being careful when it
comes to creation. I may not create much articles, but the ones I do make NEVER face deletion because I make sure they indicate notability and have sufficient reliable references. AFD wouldn't even be as overcrowded as it is now if everyone did the same.
Any thoughts on my preloaded new article template idea? It's just wikitext, so regulars could do what they liked, but newbies will see a clear indication of what we expect in an article.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Keith Old wrote:
I think that the idea is worth pursuing with one minor suggestion that external links be changed to external references. Links should be added only if the site has been used as a source in preparing the articles or if they provide a valuable resource for the reader to find out more about the topic.
True. They'll probably list relevant home pages anyway.
- d.
Keith Old wrote:
David,
I think that the idea is worth pursuing with one minor suggestion that external links be changed to external references.
Links should be added only if the site has been used as a source in preparing the articles or if they provide a valuable resource for the reader to find out more about the topic.
Regards
Keith Old
Keith Old User:Capitalistroadster
Bad idea. References are references; links are links. For instance, in the [[iMDB]] article, having imdb.com as an external link would make sense. But a reference would be a specific page on imdb.com about its history, processes or staff, not the main imdb.com webpage itself.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Any thoughts on my preloaded new article template idea? It's just wikitext, so regulars could do what they liked, but newbies will see a clear indication of what we expect in an article.
What do they look like at the moment. I'd like to take a look.
At the moment, starting an article or following a redlink gives you an edit box with nothing in it. My proposal is in this message: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-December/034414.html The version in that is just off the top of my head and could do with tweaking.
- d.
On 12/10/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Any thoughts on my preloaded new article template idea? It's just wikitext, so regulars could do what they liked, but newbies will see a clear indication of what we expect in an article.
Not the user you asked, but I figured I'd put my oar in here and say it's a very good idea indeed. It might gain more support if there was an option in preferences to turn it off for experienced editors who didn't like the prefill.
-Matt
Matt Brown wrote:
On 12/10/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Any thoughts on my preloaded new article template idea? It's just wikitext, so regulars could do what they liked, but newbies will see a clear indication of what we expect in an article.
Not the user you asked, but I figured I'd put my oar in here and say it's a very good idea indeed. It might gain more support if there was an option in preferences to turn it off for experienced editors who didn't like the prefill.
-Matt
Dittoed.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Another one of the things I pride myself on is being careful when it comes to creation. I may not create much articles, but the ones I do make NEVER face deletion because I make sure they indicate notability and have sufficient reliable references. AFD wouldn't even be as overcrowded as it is now if everyone did the same.
Mgm
Sure, AFD wouldn't be as overcrowded, but the encyclopedia wouldn't be nearly as interesting or useful.
stevertigo wrote:
Brilliant. Really, really fucking brilliant! I love it when people express radical and free ideas which wont ever be tried unless by undemocratic decree.
Democracy is one of those things Wikipedia isn't, and voting remains stupid as well as evil. Anything that's ever been prematurely forced through to a poll was probably a bad idea. If it wasn't a bad idea, decree was probably the right way to do it.
- d.
--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Democracy is one of those things Wikipedia isn't, and voting remains stupid as well as evil. Anything that's ever been prematurely forced through to a poll was probably a bad idea. If it
wasn't a bad idea,
decree was probably the right way to do it.
"WINA D" - true, and for good reason. But such 'good reason' should (and [by decree] always will) be open to comment. To negate consensus (~democracy) is to negate Openness, and to denounce a mere comment == standing up for the [[Nupedia|Closed Model]].
"Voting is evil." Though Im just a dumb American, I understand perfectly well how familiarly quasi-aristocratic institutionalism might rub some people the right way.
"Voting is stupid." Granting the benefit of the doubt, you must not be referring to voting as an idealised practice or concept, but to the crude wiki application of "voting." There's a special page setup for that. I think it should be used much more often. Though I will grant you that fine tuning such a beast requires starting with some decisive baseline.
Any other overly generalistic denouncements of open (as opposed to closed) consensus?
- s. there is a crack in everything.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Anything that's ever been prematurely forced through to a poll was probably a bad idea. If it
wasn't a bad idea,
decree was probably the right way to do it.
I like the logic here: 'Lets remedy what we claim to be the problems with "prematurely forcing stuff through polls" by forcing stuff through by decree, assuming (with good faith) that such decrees will always come at the right time, and hence be better than consensus.'
Yech.
- s.
Jefferson distinguished in his later years between what he called "aristocrats" and "democrats." The aristocrats are
"those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes."
The democrats, in contrast,
"identify with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the honest and safe depository of the public interest, if not always the most wise."
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
- David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
Democracy is one of those things Wikipedia isn't,
and voting remains stupid as well as evil.
Go refute [[m:Polls are evil]], then come back here
and fight the power.
I will take up your challenge.
But first, do please clear up this confusing confusion in your interchanging use of "polls" and "voting." The English language is regarded as a powerful tool for communication because it allows for some differentiation between terms that mean... well... different things.
Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
G'day Steve,
Jefferson distinguished in his later years between what he called "aristocrats" and "democrats." The aristocrats are
Wikipedia is not the real world. Wikipedia is a website; a particularly extensive and community-driven website, but still a website. Your rights have not been violated simply because Jimbo (or the WMF, or the ArbCom, or the Cabal) fails to consult you every time they make a change.
<snip - good for Jefferson />
Hello Mark.
The piece below my sig was a pull from this http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/talks/9410-education.html which I didnt attribute to Chomsky because its mostly him quoting Jefferson. I put that in there because David Gerard's circular logic reminded me of it: even those "who identify with the people" will also hold the reservation that they may be "not always the most wise."
We can argue the oughts and ought-nots of governance till the cows come home blue in the face. That's not what the point of that little exchange was. The point (my point anyway) was that within David's overall conceptual deference to WINAD and referencing "polls are evil", was an irritating muddling of "polls," which I agree are evil) and "voting," which I actually distinguish from polling. (Hey - different words, different meaning... wow). [[m:PAE]] is at best a pun with a point, like [[m:ASD]] or most other Wikipediology (burp!) on meta. Or here for that matter.
Calling polls evil is one thing. But calling voting evil is like calling Democracy "evil," and I dont think anyone really wants to do that (except Tories and other non-democrats maybe), if only because it raises that irritating contradiction in logic that I had to call David on. When he clears up (in his thinking and on any wikiable references) the difference between polls and voting (im sure he can pull up an answers.com article on it), then we can make talk intelligently about 1) the uselessness of polls and 2) the usefulness of voting. At least conceptually.
-Stevertigo
--- Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Steve,
Jefferson distinguished in his later years between what he called "aristocrats" and "democrats." The aristocrats are
Wikipedia is not the real world. Wikipedia is a website; a particularly extensive and community-driven website, but still a website. Your rights have not been violated simply because Jimbo (or the WMF, or the ArbCom, or the Cabal) fails to consult you every time they make a change.
<snip - good for Jefferson />
-- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/197 - Release Date: 9/12/2005
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
stevertigo stated for the record:
Calling polls evil is one thing. But calling voting evil is like calling Democracy "evil," and I dont think anyone really wants to do that (except Tories and other non-democrats maybe), if only because it raises that irritating contradiction in logic that I had to call David on.
I'm not sure why you don't think that. It doesn't take Tory or a non-Democrat to understand that the tyranny of the masses is the cruelest tyranny there is.
- -- Sean Barrett | I lost my Internet. sean@epoptic.org | Can you send me another one?
--- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
I'm not sure why you don't think that. It doesn't take Tory or a non-Democrat to understand that the tyranny of the masses is the cruelest tyranny there is.
True. But we cant let the masses know that we intend to crush them after we've used them for their labours.
Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 12/9/05, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
How about this for an experiment: turn off article creation _and_ deletion for a while? Freeze the table of contents (not that we have one)...
So that all anyone could possibly do is to edit existing articles?
It would force everyone to pay attention to the articles that exist already, and with 857,833 of them you'd think people could find something worth their attention.
With deletion being impossible, AfD would become unnecessary... as would DRV. So, that should make one faction happy. On the other hand, there would be no opportunity to add subtrivial topics. (Or trivial topics, or significant topics). That should make another faction happy.
I wouldn't call it an experiment, because it's obvious that it's not a long term solution.
I don't think it'd be horrible, if it were kept to no more than one week a month. Even then, you can't turn off deletion completely. Copyright infringements still have to be deleted. Patent nonsense probably should be deleted too (though one could argue for just editing). Test pages, pure vandalism, history merging, and non-controversial page move deletion should be kept on too. Not quite all the speedy criteria, but the truly obvious ones, at least.
I dunno, might be interesting to try.
Anthony
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
How about this for an experiment: turn off article creation _and_ deletion for a while? Freeze the table of contents (not that we have one)...
So that all anyone could possibly do is to edit existing articles?
It would force everyone to pay attention to the articles that exist already, and with 857,833 of them you'd think people could find something worth their attention.
With deletion being impossible, AfD would become unnecessary... as would DRV. So, that should make one faction happy. On the other hand, there would be no opportunity to add subtrivial topics. (Or trivial topics, or significant topics). That should make another faction happy.
This could in theory be a part of the (is it a joke, perhaps not anymore?) concept of a "working vacation day" on January 15th. Fantasize that for a single day, we turn off anon editing, we turn off account creation, turn off article creation and deletion.
Freeze the table of contents, freeze the staff, and have a day of "cleaning up" without all the noise. :-)
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
This could in theory be a part of the (is it a joke, perhaps not anymore?) concept of a "working vacation day" on January 15th. Fantasize that for a single day, we turn off anon editing, we turn off account creation, turn off article creation and deletion. Freeze the table of contents, freeze the staff, and have a day of "cleaning up" without all the noise. :-)
Make it a week - second or third week of January.
As proposed elsewhere in the thread, allow article creation in userspace. 'Cos you *know* saying "you can't create articles" will just make people want to create articles ;-) (Expect a flood of stubs the week before!)
- d.
On 12/11/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
This could in theory be a part of the (is it a joke, perhaps not anymore?) concept of a "working vacation day" on January 15th. Fantasize that for a single day, we turn off anon editing, we turn off account creation, turn off article creation and deletion. Freeze the table of contents, freeze the staff, and have a day of "cleaning up" without all the noise. :-)
Make it a week - second or third week of January.
As proposed elsewhere in the thread, allow article creation in userspace. 'Cos you *know* saying "you can't create articles" will just make people want to create articles ;-) (Expect a flood of stubs the week before!)
- d.
I would think all namespaces other than article namespace would allow creation. New talk pages are certainly OK. Same with new user pages. New project namespace pages, well, we can soft-ban them.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I would think all namespaces other than article namespace would allow creation. New talk pages are certainly OK. Same with new user pages. New project namespace pages, well, we can soft-ban them.
Anthony
Why soft-ban all of them? Not every new project space page is an AFD subpage. For example, I think it should still be possible to start a Featured Article Candidacy in the cleanup week.
grm_wnr
On 12/11/05, grm_wnr grmwnr@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I would think all namespaces other than article namespace would allow creation. New talk pages are certainly OK. Same with new user pages. New project namespace pages, well, we can soft-ban them.
Anthony
Why soft-ban all of them? Not every new project space page is an AFD subpage. For example, I think it should still be possible to start a Featured Article Candidacy in the cleanup week.
grm_wnr
You're right. I was thinking more of creating a whole new project page, not a subpage.
Jimmy Wales wrote:
This could in theory be a part of the (is it a joke, perhaps not
anymore?) concept of a "working vacation day" on January 15th. Fantasize that for a single day, we turn off anon editing, we turn off account creation, turn off article creation and deletion.
Freeze the table of contents, freeze the staff, and have a day of "cleaning up" without all the noise. :-)
Considering how much I've allowed the books and papers to pile up around me and my computer, my wife would appreciate that. :-)
Ec