Granted, the post I made in the other thread contained an opinion, but so did the Concutator's.
I think the people who are suggesting to shut off AFD as an experiment are trying to solve a problem by addressing the wrong symptoms. So with this post, I'll try to dig up the motives behind the idea.
1. Deletion is a neccesary evil. Even Kappa, who is considered extremely inclusionist by a lot of wikipedians, occasionally uses AFD to list something, so there's clearly deletions by policy that need to happen yet are not covered by speedy criterions. AFD is the only recourse which allows all Wikipedians to have their say on the issue in an ordered manner right now and has additional benefits I list below. (Cuncatator, would you agree with this?)
2. Speedy criterions need to be objective which is why formulating them is so hard. It's simply impossible to make anything that should be deleted speediable, because deletion policy requires interpretation. There's almost always exceptions to the rule.
3. Deletion will create ill-feelings no matter how they are dealt with. People who created the article or care about the subject of one may feel 'bitten'. Regardless whether we use Pure Wiki Deletion, Uncontested Deletion, AFD, Speedy or any other matter.
4. AFD show contested articles to a larger public and often lead to evidence being produced which wouldn't otherwise been found and the saving of an article which would otherwise have been deleted. Any method like Pure Wiki Deletion would require you to dig through your watchlist and Recent changes on a daily basis to see if any articles you care about have a deletion discussion going.
5. Central listing avoids nominated articles from hiding in obscurity if disgrunted editors or vandals remove a template something which cannot be done with categories or any other method I've heard suggested so far.
6. It's not the fact that all the deletion discussion are listed at AFD that is causing the ill-feelings but the actions and reactions of certain editors. Discontinuing AFD for any length of time would not address these feelings.
All these points (facts as far as I can tell) indicate, to me, we should be focussing on how people act on AFD and how authors of deleted content take it rather than get rid of the process itself.
Could any of the people suggesting turning off AFD say which of the facts I list here, they don't agree with. I would also like to see some facts countering my points and tell me why AFD should stop (even temporarily) rather than adjusted or refined.
Mgm
On 12/9/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Granted, the post I made in the other thread contained an opinion, but so did the Concutator's.
I think the people who are suggesting to shut off AFD as an experiment are trying to solve a problem by addressing the wrong symptoms. So with this post, I'll try to dig up the motives behind the idea.
- Deletion is a neccesary evil. Even Kappa, who is considered
extremely inclusionist by a lot of wikipedians, occasionally uses AFD to list something, so there's clearly deletions by policy that need to happen yet are not covered by speedy criterions. AFD is the only recourse which allows all Wikipedians to have their say on the issue in an ordered manner right now and has additional benefits I list below. (Cuncatator, would you agree with this?)
- Speedy criterions need to be objective which is why formulating
them is so hard. It's simply impossible to make anything that should be deleted speediable, because deletion policy requires interpretation. There's almost always exceptions to the rule.
- Deletion will create ill-feelings no matter how they are dealt
with. People who created the article or care about the subject of one may feel 'bitten'. Regardless whether we use Pure Wiki Deletion, Uncontested Deletion, AFD, Speedy or any other matter.
- AFD show contested articles to a larger public and often lead to
evidence being produced which wouldn't otherwise been found and the saving of an article which would otherwise have been deleted. Any method like Pure Wiki Deletion would require you to dig through your watchlist and Recent changes on a daily basis to see if any articles you care about have a deletion discussion going.
- Central listing avoids nominated articles from hiding in obscurity
if disgrunted editors or vandals remove a template something which cannot be done with categories or any other method I've heard suggested so far.
- It's not the fact that all the deletion discussion are listed at
AFD that is causing the ill-feelings but the actions and reactions of certain editors. Discontinuing AFD for any length of time would not address these feelings.
All these points (facts as far as I can tell) indicate, to me, we should be focussing on how people act on AFD and how authors of deleted content take it rather than get rid of the process itself.
Could any of the people suggesting turning off AFD say which of the facts I list here, they don't agree with. I would also like to see some facts countering my points and tell me why AFD should stop (even temporarily) rather than adjusted or refined.
Mgm
I disagree that it's not possible to come up with objective criteria for deletion. I disagree with the sentiment that "Deletion will create ill-feelings no matter how they are dealt with", because some methods of dealing with it causes much more ill-feelings than others. I don't think showing contested articles to a larger public for less than a week is beneficial. If it's that important, the public will find it anyway. If it's not that important, then it's no big loss, especially if the action can be reversed a month, two months, three years later. I don't think it's necessary to keep "nominations" from hiding in obscurity. Again, if it's important, someone will notice it and reverse it. If it isn't, then it doesn't matter anyway. This is especially true because we already point out that an article has been deleted when someone actually tries to read that article. Furthermore, how many people actually look at AfD every single week to check if any articles they care about are being deleted? I'd imagine it's not many. The time that articles are kept on AfD is already far too short to expect that many objectors will notice in time.
On 12/9/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I disagree that it's not possible to come up with objective criteria for deletion. I disagree with the sentiment that "Deletion will create ill-feelings no matter how they are dealt with", because some methods of dealing with it causes much more ill-feelings than others. I don't think showing contested articles to a larger public for less than a week is beneficial. If it's that important, the public will find it anyway. If it's not that important, then it's no big loss, especially if the action can be reversed a month, two months, three years later.
I didn't say it was impossible to come up with objective criteria, just hard to find some everyone agrees with for some types of articles.
Correction: We can't make everything that needs to be deleted speediable. Some things need interpretation and thus discussion. (I said anything)
People are not online all the time so Recentchanges and Watchlists aren't going to cover everything they care about that is nominated for deletion. I for one, would hate to trawl through hours of edit logs when you can just have them all neatly logged in one place. For example, I wouldn't have noticed Emerson Spartz being nominated for deletion. That was important to me and it would've made it hard for me to find if AFD wasn't centralized. We shouldn't make people search for debates just because they hurt someone's feelings.
I don't think it's necessary to keep "nominations" from hiding in obscurity. Again, if it's important, someone will notice it and reverse it. If it isn't, then it doesn't matter anyway. This is especially true because we already point out that an article has been deleted when someone actually tries to read that article.
Speedy deletion nominations aren't permanently logged in a central place, only in the edit history. They disappear from the directory as soon as the tag is removed. Have you got any idea how often speedy tags are removed? Just because I don't notice them being removed, doesn't mean it's not important.
Furthermore, how many people actually look at AfD every single week to check if any articles they care about are being deleted? I'd imagine it's not many. The time that articles are kept on AfD is already far too short to expect that many objectors will notice in time.
What point of mine was this aimed at?
On 12/9/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/9/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I disagree that it's not possible to come up with objective criteria for deletion. I disagree with the sentiment that "Deletion will create ill-feelings no matter how they are dealt with", because some methods of dealing with it causes much more ill-feelings than others. I don't think showing contested articles to a larger public for less than a week is beneficial. If it's that important, the public will find it anyway. If it's not that important, then it's no big loss, especially if the action can be reversed a month, two months, three years later.
I didn't say it was impossible to come up with objective criteria, just hard to find some everyone agrees with for some types of articles.
AfD doesn't scale. Speedy deletion does. It's worth the trouble to do the hard work to create a system that scales.
Correction: We can't make everything that needs to be deleted speediable. Some things need interpretation and thus discussion. (I said anything)
Even if that's true, I suspect the types of things that need discussion are a tiny subset of what gets deleted by AfD. Like I said somewhere else, maybe AfD would wind up getting resurrected in some new form after we learn what kinds of articles speedy deletion absolutely can't work for.
People are not online all the time so Recentchanges and Watchlists aren't going to cover everything they care about that is nominated for deletion.
People aren't on AfD all the time either. The solution for both of these problems is undeletion.
I for one, would hate to trawl through hours of edit logs when you can just have them all neatly logged in one place. For example, I wouldn't have noticed Emerson Spartz being nominated for deletion. That was important to me and it would've made it hard for me to find if AFD wasn't centralized. We shouldn't make people search for debates just because they hurt someone's feelings.
I do hate to trawl through AFD. In fact, I just don't do it. Try avoiding AFD for a few months. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised about how the wiki continues to work. You might just find yourself never coming back, though.
I don't think it's necessary to keep "nominations" from hiding in obscurity. Again, if it's important, someone will notice it and reverse it. If it isn't, then it doesn't matter anyway. This is especially true because we already point out that an article has been deleted when someone actually tries to read that article.
Speedy deletion nominations aren't permanently logged in a central place, only in the edit history. They disappear from the directory as soon as the tag is removed. Have you got any idea how often speedy tags are removed? Just because I don't notice them being removed, doesn't mean it's not important.
Ah, I see what you mean now, you're talking about speedy deletion nominations. Can't these be put on [[Wikipedia:Speedy deletions]] for a central location? I don't really see what this has to do with AfD, anyway.
Furthermore, how many people actually look at AfD every single week to check if any articles they care about are being deleted? I'd imagine it's not many. The time that articles are kept on AfD is already far too short to expect that many objectors will notice in time.
What point of mine was this aimed at?
Well, it was aimed at my misunderstanding of point 5 :). But it applies to point 4 as well. It's already a pain in the ass to watch for deletions.
I don't think it's necessary to keep "nominations" from hiding in obscurity. Again, if it's important, someone will notice it and reverse it. If it isn't, then it doesn't matter anyway. This is especially true because we already point out that an article has been deleted when someone actually tries to read that article.
Speedy deletion nominations aren't permanently logged in a central place, only in the edit history. They disappear from the directory as soon as the tag is removed. Have you got any idea how often speedy tags are removed? Just because I don't notice them being removed, doesn't mean it's not important.
Ah, I see what you mean now, you're talking about speedy deletion nominations. Can't these be put on [[Wikipedia:Speedy deletions]] for a central location? I don't really see what this has to do with AfD, anyway.
I'm saying that listing articles on a central page rather than tagging and categorizing them avoid people from removing tags which shouldn't be removed.
On 12/9/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think it's necessary to keep "nominations" from hiding in obscurity. Again, if it's important, someone will notice it and reverse it. If it isn't, then it doesn't matter anyway. This is especially true because we already point out that an article has been deleted when someone actually tries to read that article.
Speedy deletion nominations aren't permanently logged in a central place, only in the edit history. They disappear from the directory as soon as the tag is removed. Have you got any idea how often speedy tags are removed? Just because I don't notice them being removed, doesn't mean it's not important.
Ah, I see what you mean now, you're talking about speedy deletion nominations. Can't these be put on [[Wikipedia:Speedy deletions]] for a central location? I don't really see what this has to do with AfD, anyway.
I'm saying that listing articles on a central page rather than tagging and categorizing them avoid people from removing tags which shouldn't be removed.
And I don't see what that has to do with AFD. When we turn off AFD, we turn off tagging articles under AFD too.
Anthony
Ah, I see what you mean now, you're talking about speedy deletion nominations. Can't these be put on [[Wikipedia:Speedy deletions]] for a central location? I don't really see what this has to do with AfD, anyway.
I'm saying that listing articles on a central page rather than tagging and categorizing them avoid people from removing tags which shouldn't be removed.
And I don't see what that has to do with AFD. When we turn off AFD, we turn off tagging articles under AFD too.
Anthony
You seem to want to turn off AFD because you think the central page sparks too much poisonous feelings. I'm saying that turning off AFD, or using an alternative tagging method like the one speedy uses now allows for articles that should be deleted to slip through the net. Especially when they have 2 weeks or a month to be manipulated.
Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
You seem to want to turn off AFD because you think the central page sparks too much poisonous feelings. I'm saying that turning off AFD, or using an alternative tagging method like the one speedy uses now allows for articles that should be deleted to slip through the net. Especially when they have 2 weeks or a month to be manipulated.
So what? They can be retagged later. If you want to present a polished face to the world, a deletion rampage isn't going to do the job.
- d.
On 12/10/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
You seem to want to turn off AFD because you think the central page sparks too much poisonous feelings. I'm saying that turning off AFD, or using an alternative tagging method like the one speedy uses now allows for articles that should be deleted to slip through the net. Especially when they have 2 weeks or a month to be manipulated.
So what? They can be retagged later. If you want to present a polished face to the world, a deletion rampage isn't going to do the job.
- d.
Why delete an entire process to deal with user's personal actions and feelings? Going on a process deactivation rampage isn't going to do the job.
Exactly how is keeping deletable stuff around for 2 weeks or longer a good thing? The longer you leave it the easier it is for people to muck up and let it slip through. I'm not talking about a deletion rampage, I'm talking about stuff that everyone already agrees on should be deleted. Two, we need to place to discuss the stuff before deleting possibly contentious articles. Turning it off will spark deletions regular users didn't have a say in. It takes away the place it should be discussed at.
Mgm
On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly how is keeping deletable stuff around for 2 weeks or longer a good thing? The longer you leave it the easier it is for people to muck up and let it slip through.
What do you mean "muck up"? You mean they might change their minds and decide not to delete it after all?
On 12/10/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly how is keeping deletable stuff around for 2 weeks or longer a good thing? The longer you leave it the easier it is for people to muck up and let it slip through.
What do you mean "muck up"? You mean they might change their minds and decide not to delete it after all?
No, I mean they may forget to list an obviously deletable article after 2 weeks. I don't know what I did 2 weeks ago on the wiki. Do you? I'm saying we shouldn't delay deletions just because deletion upsets some people.
Mgm
Two, we need to place to discuss the stuff before deleting possibly contentious articles. Turning it off will spark deletions regular users didn't have a say in. It takes away the place it should be discussed at.
If you want to delete something, what's wrong with taking long enough to get it right? Five days is not enough. People who can't be fucked to tell the article creator are manifestly not taking sufficient care, but try adding that to deletion policy and see how far you get.
Yes, I want to do it right, make the listing time longer. Hell, if I can I'll inform the author, I will. This quote of mine referred to shutting off AFD. What I'm worried about is the backlog we are creating by shutting off AFD without any sort of backup to replace it with. We can expand speedies and try alternative methods, but we need a backup in place and running in case it falls flat.
On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
No, I mean they may forget to list an obviously deletable article after 2 weeks. I don't know what I did 2 weeks ago on the wiki. Do you? I'm saying we shouldn't delay deletions just because deletion upsets some people.
Really if that's your worry then you should look at the economics.
To list an article for deletion requires a minimum of three edits:
1) Edit article. 2) Edit deletion page. 3) Edit AfD day log to transclude deletion page.
If you encounter an article that needs to be deleted but cannot be speedy deleted during an experimental closing of AfD, just add a link to that article to your user page.
That's *one* edit.
If at the end of the experiment you look at the article again, and you still think it needs to be deleted, then list it for deletion.
If instead it's turned into something good, then we've learned something and a good article has been produced.
An alternative would be to permit AfD to continue as usual, but on the understanding that no AfD closes would be performed for the duration of the experiment, except valid speedy deletions and speedy keeps under the normal terms.
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Why delete an entire process to deal with user's personal actions and feelings? Going on a process deactivation rampage isn't going to do the job.
Because all process is instruction creep until proven otherwise, and can still become it. You realise of course that the process of actually changing deletion policy is utterly bogged down because no-one trusts anyone else's suggestions to be in good faith.
"user's personal actions and feelings" because the process has an atmosphere of assumption of bad faith. A deletion policy is a good thing; this one sucks by its results - driving knowledgeable people off Wikipedia, assumption of bad faith to all outsiders to the deletion process, unnecessary forking from Wikipedia (Comixpedia), etc.
Exactly how is keeping deletable stuff around for 2 weeks or longer a good thing? The longer you leave it the easier it is for people to muck up and let it slip through. I'm not talking about a deletion rampage, I'm talking about stuff that everyone already agrees on should be deleted.
Did you see Tony Sidaway's email giving the actual numbers? AFD creates angst way out of proportion to its actual effects on the article base.
Two, we need to place to discuss the stuff before deleting possibly contentious articles. Turning it off will spark deletions regular users didn't have a say in. It takes away the place it should be discussed at.
If you want to delete something, what's wrong with taking long enough to get it right? Five days is not enough. People who can't be fucked to tell the article creator are manifestly not taking sufficient care, but try adding that to deletion policy and see how far you get.
- d.
On 12/10/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Why delete an entire process to deal with user's personal actions and feelings? Going on a process deactivation rampage isn't going to do the job.
Because all process is instruction creep until proven otherwise, and can still become it. You realise of course that the process of actually changing deletion policy is utterly bogged down because no-one trusts anyone else's suggestions to be in good faith.
"user's personal actions and feelings" because the process has an atmosphere of assumption of bad faith. A deletion policy is a good thing; this one sucks by its results - driving knowledgeable people off Wikipedia, assumption of bad faith to all outsiders to the deletion process, unnecessary forking from Wikipedia (Comixpedia), etc.
Exactly how is keeping deletable stuff around for 2 weeks or longer a good thing? The longer you leave it the easier it is for people to muck up and let it slip through. I'm not talking about a deletion rampage, I'm talking about stuff that everyone already agrees on should be deleted.
Did you see Tony Sidaway's email giving the actual numbers? AFD creates angst way out of proportion to its actual effects on the article base.
The letters AFD appear 9 times on [[WP:AN/I]]
George Bush gets mentioned at least 10 times. George W Bush is just one article.
If you want to delete something, what's wrong with taking long enough to get it right? Five days is not enough. People who can't be fucked to tell the article creator are manifestly not taking sufficient care, but try adding that to deletion policy and see how far you get.
- d.
To be fair unless {{Subst:test}} counts as telling the author they tend not to be told about speedies either. -- geni
On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I'm saying that turning off AFD, or using an alternative tagging method like the one speedy uses now allows for articles that should be deleted to slip through the net. Especially when they have 2 weeks or a month to be manipulated.
Umm, you're saying that giving an article that "should be deleted" might, given time, actually improve to the point where it cannot be deleted? Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?
If it *is* what you're saying, then obviously that's wrong! We cannot have people improving articles that someone else thinks should exist! That will never do! :)
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I'm saying that turning off AFD, or using an alternative tagging method like the one speedy uses now allows for articles that should be deleted to slip through the net. Especially when they have 2 weeks or a month to be manipulated.
Umm, you're saying that giving an article that "should be deleted" might, given time, actually improve to the point where it cannot be deleted? Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying? If it *is* what you're saying, then obviously that's wrong! We cannot have people improving articles that someone else thinks should exist! That will never do! :)
Indeed. MGM, you appear to be approaching article deletion as a win/lose process, where keeping an article constitutes losing.
- d.
On 12/10/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I'm saying that turning off AFD, or using an alternative tagging method like the one speedy uses now allows for articles that should be deleted to slip through the net. Especially when they have 2 weeks or a month to be manipulated.
Umm, you're saying that giving an article that "should be deleted" might, given time, actually improve to the point where it cannot be deleted? Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying? If it *is* what you're saying, then obviously that's wrong! We cannot have people improving articles that someone else thinks should exist! That will never do! :)
Indeed. MGM, you appear to be approaching article deletion as a win/lose process, where keeping an article constitutes losing.
- d.
It depends, as long as we can't speedy delete obvious unexpandable dicdefs and bandvanity, we need AFD to deal with them. Those have to be deleted and if they're not I think Wikipedia as a whole loses. There's other articles I think should be kept, which is exactly why I think AFD should be kept. Give people a chance to convince others keeping certain articles is the right thing to do. If you check my 100 day AFD statistics you'll see I'm not the deletionist you make me out to be.
I'm trying to improve AFD to lessen the poisonous atmosphere, yet keep what I consider to be its good points. You seem to be radically against AFD, suggesting to me you feel having anything deleted constitutes losing.
I know AFD won't scale, so I'm willing to compromise and work to propose something that improves AFD, yet is not as radical as closing it down alltogether even for a short time. But I seem to get opposition just for wanting to keep AFD in working order just because it's not perfect at the moment.
"Improve, don't delete" is a good stance to take on articles, so I don't see why it should be any different for AFD (in which case 'delete' is 'shutdown').
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
I'm trying to improve AFD to lessen the poisonous atmosphere, yet keep what I consider to be its good points. You seem to be radically against AFD, suggesting to me you feel having anything deleted constitutes losing.
I have said precisely the opposite several times; there really isn't much point discussing this with you if you'll ignore what people say in the course of the discussion. There's a web archive if you're losing track and need to recap.
- d.
On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, I see what you mean now, you're talking about speedy deletion nominations. Can't these be put on [[Wikipedia:Speedy deletions]] for a central location? I don't really see what this has to do with AfD, anyway.
I'm saying that listing articles on a central page rather than tagging and categorizing them avoid people from removing tags which shouldn't be removed.
And I don't see what that has to do with AFD. When we turn off AFD, we turn off tagging articles under AFD too.
Anthony
You seem to want to turn off AFD because you think the central page sparks too much poisonous feelings.
What are you basing that on? The main reason I want to turn off AFD is because it's a huge waste of time. I went through the first 15 or so articles listed there, and I think every one of them could be handled without AFD.
I'm saying that turning off AFD, or using an alternative tagging method like the one speedy uses now allows for articles that should be deleted to slip through the net. Especially when they have 2 weeks or a month to be manipulated.
Mgm
I don't really see it happening. The vast majority of the articles which would be deleted wouldn't need any discussion in the first place. For those that do, if all the people who want it to be deleted forget that it even exists in the first place, well, I don't really see the harm.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Furthermore, how many people actually look at AfD every single week to check if any articles they care about are being deleted? I'd imagine it's not many. The time that articles are kept on AfD is already far too short to expect that many objectors will notice in time.
Damn right. When did it go from seven days to five? Is this to make AFD easier at the expense of the encyclopedia?
- d.