On 9/30/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/30/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds very like an obsessive deletionist who's more concerned with process than product. AFD seems to encourage that sort of thing.
Have you tried visiting Votes for undeletion lately? I did so recently and argued for undeletion of an article. I was asked if I was addressing the content or the process. Why the content, of course, I said. I was then told that this wasn't what VFU was for. Sure enough, the phrase in the undeletion policy that refers to Wikipedia being a better place with an article than without was nowhere to be seen on the page. I updated the instructions *directly* from the undeletion policy. This was reverted several times. Some people claimed that policy had been changed. I pointed out, by reference to the actual policy, that it hadn't. Whereupon a proposal to change policy was made--to exclude any reference undeletion based ona judgement that the content was good for wikipedia. At that point I decided it was time to leave people who wanted to play silly buggers to get on with it.
That's really breathtakingly stupid behaviour. I suppose I'm going to have to look and find who these morons are.
- d.
On 9/30/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/30/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/30/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds very like an obsessive deletionist who's more concerned with process than product. AFD seems to encourage that sort of thing.
Have you tried visiting Votes for undeletion lately? I did so recently and argued for undeletion of an article. I was asked if I was addressing the content or the process. Why the content, of course, I said. I was then told that this wasn't what VFU was for. Sure enough, the phrase in the undeletion policy that refers to Wikipedia being a better place with an article than without was nowhere to be seen on the page. I updated the instructions *directly* from the undeletion policy. This was reverted several times. Some people claimed that policy had been changed. I pointed out, by reference to the actual policy, that it hadn't. Whereupon a proposal to change policy was made--to exclude any reference undeletion based ona judgement that the content was good for wikipedia. At that point I decided it was time to leave people who wanted to play silly buggers to get on with it.
That's really breathtakingly stupid behaviour. I suppose I'm going to have to look and find who these morons are.
I have a mild objection to referring to fellow editors as "morons". Please try not to use name calling to make your point.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
As silly as it is to cling to process over content when we're writing an encyclopedia, I can see their fear that VfU could become AfD take 2. I don't really want another AfD, but the whole "it's only about process" mantra reeks of a beauracratic culture.
Laurascudder
On 9/30/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/30/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/30/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds very like an obsessive deletionist who's more concerned with process than product. AFD seems to encourage that sort of thing.
Have you tried visiting Votes for undeletion lately? I did so recently and argued for undeletion of an article. I was asked if I was addressing the content or the process. Why the content, of course, I said. I was then told that this wasn't what VFU was for. Sure enough, the phrase in the undeletion policy that refers to Wikipedia being a better place with an article than without was nowhere to be seen on the page. I updated the instructions *directly* from the undeletion policy. This was reverted several times. Some people claimed that policy had been changed. I pointed out, by reference to the actual policy, that it hadn't. Whereupon a proposal to change policy was made--to exclude any reference undeletion based ona judgement that the content was good for wikipedia. At that point I decided it was time to leave people who wanted to play silly buggers to get on with it.
That's really breathtakingly stupid behaviour. I suppose I'm going to have to look and find who these morons are.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l