Here's an article about a crash that didn't happen, to two planes on two different runways, although apparently one is in the take-off line of the other, where there were no injuries or damages to either aircraft that didn't crash into each other, with speculation about a controller error, and no NTSB report yet issued.
I love Wikipedia, Britannica eat your hear out.
Republic Airlines flight 4912 & SkyWest Airlines flight 5741
KP
On 7/6/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Here's an article about a crash that didn't happen, to two planes on two different runways, although apparently one is in the take-off line of the other, where there were no injuries or damages to either aircraft that didn't crash into each other, with speculation about a controller error, and no NTSB report yet issued.
I love Wikipedia, Britannica eat your hear out.
Republic Airlines flight 4912 & SkyWest Airlines flight 5741
KP
Proves one of my previous points about level of news coverage being more important than number of casualties.
—C.W.
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 18:45:06 -0700, "K P" kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Republic Airlines flight 4912 & SkyWest Airlines flight 5741
Good grief. We should think about starting a project for news stories, where things like this that have absolutely zero lasting significance can go. We could call it,. I don't know, how about... Wikinews.
What baffles me even more is that it was kept by AfD. Are we really lowering the bar to the point where every single near miss gets an article? Are we the FAA Wiki now?
Guy (JzG)
On Sat, Jul 07, 2007 at 10:29:23AM +0100, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 18:45:06 -0700, "K P" kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Republic Airlines flight 4912 & SkyWest Airlines flight 5741
Good grief. We should think about starting a project for news stories, where things like this that have absolutely zero lasting significance can go. We could call it,. I don't know, how about... Wikinews.
What baffles me even more is that it was kept by AfD. Are we really lowering the bar to the point where every single near miss gets an article? Are we the FAA Wiki now?
I suggest that the problem here is the confusion we have about notability and sources. This has sources. However by any reasonable criteria, in my humble opinion, it is not encyclopedic. We need to have a notability set of criteria that decides whether a topic is, well, notable, i.e important enough to have an article if there are sources, or not notable so it does not have an article even if there are sources.
Brian.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/7/07, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
We need to have a notability set of criteria that decides whether a topic is, well, notable, i.e important enough to have an article if there are sources, or not notable so it does not have an article even if there are sources.
There will always be exceptions on both sides of the line, no matter how complexly gerrymandered it becomes. Even if it were possible to create a picture-perfect and binding rubric of "notability", any time and energy invested such a task would be better spent elsewhere.
—C.W.
On Sat, Jul 07, 2007 at 05:08:40AM -0500, Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 7/7/07, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
We need to have a notability set of criteria that decides whether a topic is, well, notable, i.e important enough to have an article if there are sources, or not notable so it does not have an article even if there are sources.
There will always be exceptions on both sides of the line, no matter how complexly gerrymandered it becomes. Even if it were possible to create a picture-perfect and binding rubric of "notability", any time and energy invested such a task would be better spent elsewhere.
Note I said "a set of criteria". I agree no simple rubric will do. I think we need to decentralise the idea of notability even more than we do and trust the WikiProjects and other subject guidelines as long as they are all openly and tranparently discussed and consensus reached.
Brian.
?C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The article didn't really shock me to tell the truth. If you have the nerves, take a look at [[Professional wrestling]] and some of the articles it links to.
A commonsense-oriented notability guideline seems as necessary as it would be difficult to implement, because opposition to such a proposal can be expected from multiple directions. Some would oppose based on their fear of deletionist book burnings, others see the strain it would put on process.
I believe such a proposal could only stand a chance as part of a far reaching reform, possibly including the abandonment of AfD in its current form.
Ideas like annex.wikia.com may be one alternative way to address the issue of articles with non-encyclopedic subjects (fiction related articles in the case of annex). Nothing beyond the obvious deletion candidates would really have to be deleted. Instead, such articles could be moved to annex, awaiting relocation into a more suitable wiki.
But I expect major difficulties explaining "just why" a subject like [[Professional wrestling aerial techniques]], despite all the references in the article, isn't fit for its own Wikipedia article. Same goes for many "recent events" and fiction related pages.
On the other hand, such "outsourcing" efforts could work wonders against vandalism, much of which happens on subjects with recent news coverage. And it would probably increase the overall reputation of Wikipedia, too.
Adrian
On Saturday 07 July 2007 06:24, Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
Note I said "a set of criteria". I agree no simple rubric will do. I think we need to decentralise the idea of notability even more than we do and trust the WikiProjects and other subject guidelines as long as they are all openly and tranparently discussed and consensus reached.
You know, I proposed essentially this exact same idea on [[Village Pump/Proposals]] a year or two ago and I was attacked incessantly under the assumption that it was just a scheme to enforce my "extreme inclusionist" stance.
On 7/7/07, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
You know, I proposed essentially this exact same idea on [[Village Pump/Proposals]] a year or two ago and I was attacked incessantly under the assumption that it was just a scheme to enforce my "extreme inclusionist" stance. -- Kurt Weber
Hopefully, then, you realized (even if for the wrong reasons) that attempting to define "notability" is a huge mistake.
—C.W.
On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 05:08:40 -0500, "Charlotte Webb" charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
There will always be exceptions on both sides of the line, no matter how complexly gerrymandered it becomes. Even if it were possible to create a picture-perfect and binding rubric of "notability", any time and energy invested such a task would be better spent elsewhere.
Of course. And even for the blindingly obvious cases there will always be at least one person who disagrees, otherwise the article would not exist in the first place.
You can't legislate Clue, unfortunately.
However, I'd say notability is pretty explicit about the mere existence of sources not being an indicator if inherent notability. In this case there is no true secondary source, since the FAA and the press reports are both primary.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/7/07, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
We need to have a notability set of criteria that decides whether a topic is, well, notable, i.e important enough to have an article if there are sources, or not notable so it does not have an article even if there are sources.
Clear this backlog and then we can talk about how to handle well-referenced articles that you don't think are important.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources
—C.W.
On 7/7/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
Clear this backlog and then we can talk about how to handle well-referenced articles that you don't think are important.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources
I wholly agree; we spend way too much time worrying about if something is important enough or not, and not enough about whether things are actually verifiable, which is a much bigger issue.
-Matt
On 7/7/07, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
On Sat, Jul 07, 2007 at 10:29:23AM +0100, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 18:45:06 -0700, "K P" kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Republic Airlines flight 4912 & SkyWest Airlines flight 5741
Good grief. We should think about starting a project for news stories, where things like this that have absolutely zero lasting significance can go. We could call it,. I don't know, how about... Wikinews.
What baffles me even more is that it was kept by AfD. Are we really lowering the bar to the point where every single near miss gets an article? Are we the FAA Wiki now?
I suggest that the problem here is the confusion we have about notability and sources. This has sources. However by any reasonable criteria, in my humble opinion, it is not encyclopedic. We need to have a notability set of criteria that decides whether a topic is, well, notable, i.e important enough to have an article if there are sources, or not notable so it does not have an article even if there are sources.
I don't think it's appropriate for you to call it "confusion" over notability and sources. To some people, notability means having sources. This isn't due to confusion, it's due to a difference of opinion.
I hope you'll respond to my last message about how this article plays an important secondary role in the encyclopedia if not a primary one. Focusing on whether or not a topic is important enough without looking at the situation holistically would result in exactly the type of bad results being suggested here.
On Sat, Jul 07, 2007 at 09:35:15AM -0400, Anthony wrote:
On 7/7/07, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
On Sat, Jul 07, 2007 at 10:29:23AM +0100, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 18:45:06 -0700, "K P" kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Republic Airlines flight 4912 & SkyWest Airlines flight 5741
Good grief. We should think about starting a project for news stories, where things like this that have absolutely zero lasting significance can go. We could call it,. I don't know, how about... Wikinews.
What baffles me even more is that it was kept by AfD. Are we really lowering the bar to the point where every single near miss gets an article? Are we the FAA Wiki now?
I suggest that the problem here is the confusion we have about notability and sources. This has sources. However by any reasonable criteria, in my humble opinion, it is not encyclopedic. We need to have a notability set of criteria that decides whether a topic is, well, notable, i.e important enough to have an article if there are sources, or not notable so it does not have an article even if there are sources.
I don't think it's appropriate for you to call it "confusion" over notability and sources. To some people, notability means having sources. This isn't due to confusion, it's due to a difference of opinion.
Well, the diiference of opinion is between those who confuse sources and notability and those who think they are different. Is there a better word?
I hope you'll respond to my last message about how this article plays an important secondary role in the encyclopedia if not a primary one. Focusing on whether or not a topic is important enough without looking at the situation holistically would result in exactly the type of bad results being suggested here.
i Sorry, I missed that and it is gone now.
Brian.
On 7/7/07, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
On Sat, Jul 07, 2007 at 10:29:23AM +0100, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 18:45:06 -0700, "K P" kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Republic Airlines flight 4912 & SkyWest Airlines flight 5741
Good grief. We should think about starting a project for news stories, where things like this that have absolutely zero lasting significance can go. We could call it,. I don't know, how about... Wikinews.
What baffles me even more is that it was kept by AfD. Are we really lowering the bar to the point where every single near miss gets an article? Are we the FAA Wiki now?
I suggest that the problem here is the confusion we have about notability and sources. This has sources. However by any reasonable criteria, in my humble opinion, it is not encyclopedic. We need to have a notability set of criteria that decides whether a topic is, well, notable, i.e important enough to have an article if there are sources, or not notable so it does not have an article even if there are sources.
A reasonable definition of "encyclopedic" is "covering all knowledge." Therefore there exists reasonable criteria by which the article would be encyclopedic. Your claim that "by any reasonable criteria" the article is not encyclopedic is not accurate.
On 7/7/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
A reasonable definition of "encyclopedic" is "covering all knowledge." Therefore there exists reasonable criteria by which the article would be encyclopedic. Your claim that "by any reasonable criteria" the article is not encyclopedic is not accurate.
If you are using "knowledge" as a mere synonym for "information", sure, but does a near miss between two planes qualify as "knowledge", or is it simply just a bit of trivia, an unimportant data point?
On 7/7/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
If you are using "knowledge" as a mere synonym for "information", sure, but does a near miss between two planes qualify as "knowledge", or is it simply just a bit of trivia, an unimportant data point?
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/knowledge#Noun
Does your meaning of "knowledge" match any of these definitions? If so, when you write articles, please keep do your "knowledge" in check and give me the "information" instead.
—C.W.
On 7/7/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/7/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
If you are using "knowledge" as a mere synonym for "information", sure, but does a near miss between two planes qualify as "knowledge", or is it simply just a bit of trivia, an unimportant data point?
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/knowledge#Noun
Does your meaning of "knowledge" match any of these definitions? If so, when you write articles, please keep do your "knowledge" in check and give me the "information" instead.
Those are pretty bad definitions, and none of them seem to fit the context of this thread.
As for the question of whether or not this particular "near miss between two planes" is unimportant, as I've already pointed out it clearly is not. The incident is a clear example of the use of AMASS - so it is a very important data point for anyone doing research on such systems. Now maybe you could argue that this bit of knowledge is too specialized for Wikipedia (and I'd still disagree), but it is certainly not trivia.
On 7/8/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 7/7/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/7/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
If you are using "knowledge" as a mere synonym for "information", sure, but does a near miss between two planes qualify as "knowledge", or is it simply just a bit of trivia, an unimportant data point?
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/knowledge#Noun
Does your meaning of "knowledge" match any of these definitions? If so, when you write articles, please keep do your "knowledge" in check and give me the "information" instead.
Those are pretty bad definitions, and none of them seem to fit the context of this thread.
As for the question of whether or not this particular "near miss between two planes" is unimportant, as I've already pointed out it clearly is not. The incident is a clear example of the use of AMASS - so it is a very important data point for anyone doing research on such systems. Now maybe you could argue that this bit of knowledge is too specialized for Wikipedia (and I'd still disagree), but it is certainly not trivia.
If it's an example of the use of AMASS then it belongs in that article, not on it's own. In fact, that article would be enhanced by inclusion of this near miss.
Another goodie, the picture of a "prostitute" in the Wikipedia article on prostitution might be fake. Yet, there is an argument for keeping the image even if it is a fake because, "The artist has created it as a representation of what a prostitute looks like."
No debate about how this editor came to the conclusion that this image is "a representation of what a prostitute looks like," particularly since it's a blonde prostitue and the percentage of blonde prostitutes is probably rather low, once you add in prostitution from all those countries in the world which have hundreds of millions of people and few blondes.
I love the argument for keeping a phonied up image (although I don't know that that's what this is) because it is an artist's conception, according to another editor, of what representative prostitutes look like.
That's special Original Research. It should be removed, until the issue is settled, though.
KP
On 7/8/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/8/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 7/7/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/7/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
If you are using "knowledge" as a mere synonym for "information", sure, but does a near miss between two planes qualify as "knowledge", or is it simply just a bit of trivia, an unimportant data point?
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/knowledge#Noun
Does your meaning of "knowledge" match any of these definitions? If so, when you write articles, please keep do your "knowledge" in check and give me the "information" instead.
Those are pretty bad definitions, and none of them seem to fit the context of this thread.
As for the question of whether or not this particular "near miss between two planes" is unimportant, as I've already pointed out it clearly is not. The incident is a clear example of the use of AMASS - so it is a very important data point for anyone doing research on such systems. Now maybe you could argue that this bit of knowledge is too specialized for Wikipedia (and I'd still disagree), but it is certainly not trivia.
If it's an example of the use of AMASS then it belongs in that article, not on it's own. In fact, that article would be enhanced by inclusion of this near miss.
Well, the only problem with that is that it *also* belongs in [[runway incursion]]. Therefore it's more efficient to link it than to copy it to two places.
But if you disagree, and want to move the information to [[Airport Movement Area Safety System]], I won't try to stop you, and this doesn't require use of AfD or DRV.
On 7/7/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/7/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
A reasonable definition of "encyclopedic" is "covering all knowledge." Therefore there exists reasonable criteria by which the article would be encyclopedic. Your claim that "by any reasonable criteria" the article is not encyclopedic is not accurate.
If you are using "knowledge" as a mere synonym for "information", sure, but does a near miss between two planes qualify as "knowledge", or is it simply just a bit of trivia, an unimportant data point?
The concept of knowledge is not related to importance.
On 7/7/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
What baffles me even more is that it was kept by AfD. Are we really lowering the bar to the point where every single near miss gets an article? Are we the FAA Wiki now?
Hello Guy
I was not quite baffled, but definitely more than a little bit surprised when I saw [[Roadkill Bill]] had been kept, but I've gotten over it. I think that's an important survival skill that most people take for granted. Good luck and happy editing.
—C.W.
On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 05:22:50 -0500, "Charlotte Webb" charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
I was not quite baffled, but definitely more than a little bit surprised when I saw [[Roadkill Bill]] had been kept, but I've gotten over it. I think that's an important survival skill that most people take for granted. Good luck and happy editing.
I'm surprised, myself (I had not checked back, nobody likes a whining author). That is a borderline case, and I'd be the first to admit it. RKB is not a notable comic by comparison with, say, Dilbert, but it is unusual (maybe unique?) in that it is an openly polemical car-free advocacy comic which was published in a mainstream paper, so that is a claim to fame. I would not have cried if the community had decided the claim was too weak, although the vendetta against the author by at least one editor is somewhat aggravating.
I have had articles deleted before now for failing to establish notability. I am philosophical about it; as a deletionist it would be hypocritical to be otherwise. If I really want the world to know about such things then I'll put them on my own website.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/7/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 18:45:06 -0700, "K P" kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Republic Airlines flight 4912 & SkyWest Airlines flight 5741
Good grief. We should think about starting a project for news stories, where things like this that have absolutely zero lasting significance can go. We could call it,. I don't know, how about... Wikinews.
What baffles me even more is that it was kept by AfD. Are we really lowering the bar to the point where every single near miss gets an article? Are we the FAA Wiki now?
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
It'll be overturned on DRV, since the AfD closure was invalid and many of the people who commented seem to have gotten there from canvassing at a wikiproject anyway.
Rory
On 7/7/07, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/7/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 18:45:06 -0700, "K P" kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Republic Airlines flight 4912 & SkyWest Airlines flight 5741
Good grief. We should think about starting a project for news stories, where things like this that have absolutely zero lasting significance can go. We could call it,. I don't know, how about... Wikinews.
What baffles me even more is that it was kept by AfD. Are we really lowering the bar to the point where every single near miss gets an article? Are we the FAA Wiki now?
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
It'll be overturned on DRV, since the AfD closure was invalid and many of the people who commented seem to have gotten there from canvassing at a wikiproject anyway.
Rory
Here's another good one with "secret sources." All you tag haters, I warn you, I've added fact requested tags to the unreferenced secrets--actually should be removed, probably, on legal grounds, that we shouldn't be publically speculating about other people's secrets without references, or for some other reason that the inclusioin of unreferenced secrets mind boggling fails to allow to make sense.
Cloverfield
If you want to know some secrets, read this. But don't ask how Wikipedia knows these secrets, because that's really a secret.
KP
On 7/7/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/7/07, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/7/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 18:45:06 -0700, "K P" kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Republic Airlines flight 4912 & SkyWest Airlines flight 5741
Good grief. We should think about starting a project for news stories, where things like this that have absolutely zero lasting significance can go. We could call it,. I don't know, how about... Wikinews.
What baffles me even more is that it was kept by AfD. Are we really lowering the bar to the point where every single near miss gets an article? Are we the FAA Wiki now?
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
It'll be overturned on DRV, since the AfD closure was invalid and many of the people who commented seem to have gotten there from canvassing at a wikiproject anyway.
Rory
Here's another good one with "secret sources." All you tag haters, I warn you, I've added fact requested tags to the unreferenced secrets--actually should be removed, probably, on legal grounds, that we shouldn't be publically speculating about other people's secrets without references, or for some other reason that the inclusioin of unreferenced secrets mind boggling fails to allow to make sense.
Cloverfield
If you want to know some secrets, read this. But don't ask how Wikipedia knows these secrets, because that's really a secret.
KP
You did fact-tag at least one thing which is explicitly said in the (one) reference article, though...
On 7/7/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/7/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/7/07, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/7/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 18:45:06 -0700, "K P" kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Republic Airlines flight 4912 & SkyWest Airlines flight 5741
Good grief. We should think about starting a project for news stories, where things like this that have absolutely zero lasting significance can go. We could call it,. I don't know, how about... Wikinews.
What baffles me even more is that it was kept by AfD. Are we really lowering the bar to the point where every single near miss gets an article? Are we the FAA Wiki now?
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
It'll be overturned on DRV, since the AfD closure was invalid and many of the people who commented seem to have gotten there from canvassing at a wikiproject anyway.
Rory
Here's another good one with "secret sources." All you tag haters, I warn you, I've added fact requested tags to the unreferenced secrets--actually should be removed, probably, on legal grounds, that we shouldn't be publically speculating about other people's secrets without references, or for some other reason that the inclusioin of unreferenced secrets mind boggling fails to allow to make sense.
Cloverfield
If you want to know some secrets, read this. But don't ask how Wikipedia knows these secrets, because that's really a secret.
KP
You did fact-tag at least one thing which is explicitly said in the (one) reference article, though...
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
Ah, they need to in-line reference known secrets, though. Especially when telling the known secret to the wiki world.
It looks like there is some better editing than my slap dash going on, though, so I won't be too concerned.
Still, what fun, a secret that everyone knows, better yet, a secret film that already exists before it's been released, and, now, it even appears to be a film before it's been filmed. But again, a better editor than I am is taking care of those fun tidbits.
KP
On Jul 7, 2007, at 9:30 AM, Rory Stolzenberg wrote:
It'll be overturned on DRV, since the AfD closure was invalid and many of the people who commented seem to have gotten there from canvassing at a wikiproject anyway.
Yes, clearly a very bad closure. Closed 5 hours and 19 minutes after it opened.
I am no big fan of AfD/DRV these days, but I am pretty sure that DRV will be sensible enough to see that this is not even close to a proper closure.
(And I wouldn't have even bothered with AfD myself, but instead done it under CSD A7. Although, reading over that one now, it seems to strangely purport to only apply to "real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content"... which makes no sense to me.)
--Jimbo
On 7/8/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
(And I wouldn't have even bothered with AfD myself, but instead done it under CSD A7. Although, reading over that one now, it seems to strangely purport to only apply to "real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content"... which makes no sense to me.)
Stuff only appears in A7 when we get hit by too much of the stuff to cope with it through other means. At the moment that means what is listed. If we got hit by a load of stuff about non real people from fan fiction we would look at modifying it. Until then no reason to change the current wording.
geni wrote:
On 7/8/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
(And I wouldn't have even bothered with AfD myself, but instead done it under CSD A7. Although, reading over that one now, it seems to strangely purport to only apply to "real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content"... which makes no sense to me.)
Stuff only appears in A7 when we get hit by too much of the stuff to cope with it through other means. At the moment that means what is listed. If we got hit by a load of stuff about non real people from fan fiction we would look at modifying it. Until then no reason to change the current wording.
"If we got hit by..."? Implying we don't? I know I often enough see "XYZ was a character that appeared in one episode of ABC. He handed the main character a towel."
On 7/8/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
"If we got hit by..."? Implying we don't? I know I often enough see "XYZ was a character that appeared in one episode of ABC. He handed the main character a towel."
That isn't fan faction and would generaly be delt with via #redirect[[list of minor ABC characters]].
On 7/8/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
On Jul 7, 2007, at 9:30 AM, Rory Stolzenberg wrote:
It'll be overturned on DRV, since the AfD closure was invalid and many of the people who commented seem to have gotten there from canvassing at a wikiproject anyway.
Yes, clearly a very bad closure. Closed 5 hours and 19 minutes after it opened.
I am no big fan of AfD/DRV these days, but I am pretty sure that DRV will be sensible enough to see that this is not even close to a proper closure.
(And I wouldn't have even bothered with AfD myself, but instead done it under CSD A7. Although, reading over that one now, it seems to strangely purport to only apply to "real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content"... which makes no sense to me.)
--Jimbo
Various people would get very, very angry if anyone besides you said that. They might even oppose your RfA for it,
Rory
--- Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 18:45:06 -0700, "K P"
Republic Airlines flight 4912 & SkyWest Airlines flight
5741
Good grief. We should think about starting a project for news stories, where things like this that have absolutely zero lasting significance can go. We could call it,. I don't know, how about... Wikinews.
What baffles me even more is that it was kept by AfD. Are we really lowering the bar to the point where every single near miss gets an article? Are we the FAA Wiki now?
You're the official White House echo chamber. Weren't you informed? http://www.wikiality.com/Daily_Poll#July_2.2C_2007
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (Wikia supported site since 2006)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting
On 07/07/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Here's an article about a crash that didn't happen, to two planes on two different runways, although apparently one is in the take-off line of the other, where there were no injuries or damages to either aircraft that didn't crash into each other, with speculation about a controller error, and no NTSB report yet issued.
I love Wikipedia, Britannica eat your hear out.
Republic Airlines flight 4912 & SkyWest Airlines flight 5741
KP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
hehe i love it. i don't really care about 'notability', it's interesting and informative. deleting it would be pointless as it would still be kept in our databases. why hide an otherwise acceptable article?
deletion really should be saved for stuff that is just absolute crap. ("y0uR M0M!!!!!!" vandalism, etc etc)
On 7/6/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Here's an article about a crash that didn't happen, to two planes on two different runways, although apparently one is in the take-off line of the other, where there were no injuries or damages to either aircraft that didn't crash into each other, with speculation about a controller error, and no NTSB report yet issued.
I love Wikipedia, Britannica eat your hear out.
Republic Airlines flight 4912 & SkyWest Airlines flight 5741
How common is this type of situation? Are there any other article on similar situations?
Add a diagram, and merge and redirect with [[runway incursion]]? The article does provide a useful description of what seems to be accurately described as a severe runway incursion (someone with more knowledge of the terminology feel free to correct). I found it interesting to that extent.
Hmm, thinking more about this it is also a good example of the use of [[AMASS]]. If someone is reading about AMASS, and clicks on [[SkyWest Airlines flight 5741]] for an example, would they prefer to be linked to an article this particular incident, or to an article on [[runway incursion]]? Probably the former.
I think I'd say keep, or else merge and redirect with [[runway incursion]]. Outright deletion would seriously detract from the encyclopedia for those who want to know more about [[AMASS]] and/or [[runway incursion]]s.
Anthony
K P wrote:
Here's an article about a crash that didn't happen, to two planes on two different runways, although apparently one is in the take-off line of the other, where there were no injuries or damages to either aircraft that didn't crash into each other, with speculation about a controller error, and no NTSB report yet issued.
I love Wikipedia, Britannica eat your hear out.
One of my old favorites is up for deletion right now, for the fourth time, and looks likely to go the way of the dodo this time around. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimus_Prime_%28person%29. Just in time for the release of the new Transformers movie, too.
It was heavily referenced, non-controversial, and a fun little piece of trivia. I really don't understand why some editors feel the need to get rid of such stuff. There are days that Wikipedia makes me depressed.
On 7/7/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
One of my old favorites is up for deletion right now, for the fourth time, and looks likely to go the way of the dodo this time around. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimus_Prime_%28person%29. Just in time for the release of the new Transformers movie, too.
It was heavily referenced, non-controversial, and a fun little piece of trivia. I really don't understand why some editors feel the need to get rid of such stuff. There are days that Wikipedia makes me depressed.
Why can't it be heavily referenced, non-controversial, fun little piece of trivia in the article for the character? Why do we need an article just for him or for every fun little piece of trivia someone comes across?
On 07/07/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/7/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
One of my old favorites is up for deletion right now, for the fourth time, and looks likely to go the way of the dodo this time around. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimus_Prime_%28person%29. Just in time for the release of the new Transformers movie, too.
It was heavily referenced, non-controversial, and a fun little piece of trivia. I really don't understand why some editors feel the need to get rid of such stuff. There are days that Wikipedia makes me depressed.
Why can't it be heavily referenced, non-controversial, fun little piece of trivia in the article for the character? Why do we need an article just for him or for every fun little piece of trivia someone comes across?
Trivia is by definition... trivial. Do we want a trivial encyclopedia? I would say not.
You can imagine information like a web, with connections between pieces of information. In this case the web only connects to Optimus Prime, the toy so it's sort of like a dead end in terms of the connections; because the person probably isn't otherwise notable. I could understand if it was in the Optimus Prime article, but even then it's still essentially trivia.
I think we mostly want an encyclopaedia with articles with lots of connections between things; something that is fairly cut-off like this is probably not notable.
On 7/8/07, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/07/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/7/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
One of my old favorites is up for deletion right now, for the fourth time, and looks likely to go the way of the dodo this time around. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimus_Prime_%28person%29. Just in time for the release of the new Transformers movie, too.
It was heavily referenced, non-controversial, and a fun little piece of trivia. I really don't understand why some editors feel the need to get rid of such stuff. There are days that Wikipedia makes me depressed.
Why can't it be heavily referenced, non-controversial, fun little piece of trivia in the article for the character? Why do we need an article just for him or for every fun little piece of trivia someone comes across?
Including trivia like this in other articles would result in it being removed due to WP:TRIVIA. Keeping it separate means that readers wont find it unless they are searching for more obscure information or browsing out of interest.
Trivia is by definition... trivial. Do we want a trivial encyclopedia?
Trivia is not so easily defined; it is often said that one man's trivia is another man's treasure. Even if we accept trivia to mean trivial factoids, including them in an encyclopedia does not make the entire work trivial; rather it becomes extensive, cumbersome when it is in print, and yet still treasured on the bookshelf.
Think of works like the Guinness Book of Records and Wikiquote; they are entirely trivia, yet they are invaluable when assessed as a whole. EB1911 articles also include a lot of trivia, and sometimes even the articles can be called trivial. (see [[Accius]])
Excluding trivia from an encyclopedia is what makes it trivial.
-- John
John Vandenberg wrote:
Including trivia like this in other articles would result in it being removed due to WP:TRIVIA. Keeping it separate means that readers wont find it unless they are searching for more obscure information or browsing out of interest.
Agreed, it is certainly more valuable when kept in a separate section.
Trivia is by definition... trivial. Do we want a trivial encyclopedia?
Trivia is not so easily defined; it is often said that one man's trivia is another man's treasure. Even if we accept trivia to mean trivial factoids, including them in an encyclopedia does not make the entire work trivial; rather it becomes extensive, cumbersome when it is in print, and yet still treasured on the bookshelf.
These trivial bits are popular because they are short and easily remembered. Readers can use them after a few beers with their friends in a "Did you know ..." kind of conversation.
Think of works like the Guinness Book of Records and Wikiquote; they are entirely trivia, yet they are invaluable when assessed as a whole. EB1911 articles also include a lot of trivia, and sometimes even the articles can be called trivial. (see [[Accius]])
Guinness has standards about what it will include as a record. They don't just take any claim about someone's alleged stupid record. Haydn's Book of Dates in the 19th century had a similar popularity. Trivia are still subject to verifiability, and if the reading public realizes that it makes our trivia more valuable than urban legends that can be randomly promoted anywhere.
Excluding trivia from an encyclopedia is what makes it trivial.
Absolutely, and that exclusion is characteristic of people who take themselves too seriously. An editor sometimes needs to ask himself, "What question is a reader likely to ask?", or "What is he likely to wonder about." Wonder is a powerfully constructive emotion. (as long as it can get past wondering about your spouse's dating habits)
Ec
On 7/8/07, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/07/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/7/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
One of my old favorites is up for deletion right now, for the fourth time, and looks likely to go the way of the dodo this time around. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimus_Prime_%28person%29. Just in
time
for the release of the new Transformers movie, too.
It was heavily referenced, non-controversial, and a fun little piece
of
trivia. I really don't understand why some editors feel the need to
get
rid of such stuff. There are days that Wikipedia makes me depressed.
Why can't it be heavily referenced, non-controversial, fun little piece of trivia in the article for the character? Why do we need an article just for him or for every fun little piece of trivia someone comes across?
Trivia is by definition... trivial. Do we want a trivial encyclopedia? I would say not.
You can imagine information like a web, with connections between pieces of information. In this case the web only connects to Optimus Prime, the toy so it's sort of like a dead end in terms of the connections; because the person probably isn't otherwise notable. I could understand if it was in the Optimus Prime article, but even then it's still essentially trivia.
I think we mostly want an encyclopaedia with articles with lots of connections between things; something that is fairly cut-off like this is probably not notable.
Absolutely. I think that those who argue anything backed by reliable sources ought to be kept have forgotten that an encyclopaedia has a specific purpose, and that Wikipedia is not the only project which can accept this information. If you look at things from a macro perspective, what project is best placed to house a particular article? In the case of Optimus Prime, I think the best place is Wikinews, because this person is known mainly for changing his name to Optimus Prime - something widely reported by news outlets, but almost certain to be nothing more than a footnote in proper secondary sources such as books. We need to be more willing to embrace the perspective that Wikimedia projects are for housing information, but that different projects are meant for different types of information.
Having said that, we need to improve the transwiki process. It has not changed at all since I became an admin over three years ago, and it has always been one of the most tedious parts of closing AfDs. (I remember the time I had to transwiki a gallery of images to Commons/Wikibooks...it was horrible.)
Johnleemk
Rob wrote:
On 7/7/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
One of my old favorites is up for deletion right now, for the fourth time, and looks likely to go the way of the dodo this time around. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimus_Prime_%28person%29. Just in time for the release of the new Transformers movie, too.
It was heavily referenced, non-controversial, and a fun little piece of trivia. I really don't understand why some editors feel the need to get rid of such stuff. There are days that Wikipedia makes me depressed.
Why can't it be heavily referenced, non-controversial, fun little piece of trivia in the article for the character? Why do we need an article just for him or for every fun little piece of trivia someone comes across?
At various points in history it _has_ been, but [[Optimus Prime]] is a very large article. Very large articles tend to be split into sub-articles like this.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Rob wrote:
On 7/7/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
One of my old favorites is up for deletion right now, for the fourth time, and looks likely to go the way of the dodo this time around. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimus_Prime_%28person%29. Just in time for the release of the new Transformers movie, too.
It was heavily referenced, non-controversial, and a fun little piece of trivia. I really don't understand why some editors feel the need to get rid of such stuff. There are days that Wikipedia makes me depressed.
Why can't it be heavily referenced, non-controversial, fun little piece of trivia in the article for the character? Why do we need an article just for him or for every fun little piece of trivia someone comes across?
At various points in history it _has_ been, but [[Optimus Prime]] is a very large article. Very large articles tend to be split into sub-articles like this.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
My personal favorite is [[Meow Wars]]. I'm frankly amazed anyone could argue to keep it. It's an interesting little bit of Usenet trivia (and I vaguely remember it going on myself), but we don't need an article on every idiotic Usenet incident, "sourced" to nothing but Usenet archives and a few nostalgia essays.
On 7/8/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
At various points in history it _has_ been, but [[Optimus Prime]] is a very large article. Very large articles tend to be split into sub-articles like this.
On 7/8/07, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Including trivia like this in other articles would result in it being removed due to WP:TRIVIA. Keeping it separate means that readers wont find it unless they are searching for more obscure information or browsing out of interest.
If is important enough to be its own article, then its inclusion in [[Optimus Prime]] certainly can be justified. Optimus Prime is pretty large, but most of it is breathless fanboy plot recitation (most of which should be in the show/movie/comics articles anyway) and stuff like how many times his energy axe appeared. The solution is to take an energy axe to the plot summary stuff, if you have the stomach for that kind of work. Lord knows I don't much of the time. And, unfortunately, that's how articles on every sub-subject get created, because people often don't want to slog through editing down an overly large article. It's easier to go off and create a little article on your own, that way you get all the pride of ownership and creation and none of the hassle of editing conflicts.
Rob wrote:
On 7/8/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
At various points in history it _has_ been, but [[Optimus Prime]] is a very large article. Very large articles tend to be split into sub-articles like this.
On 7/8/07, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Including trivia like this in other articles would result in it being removed due to WP:TRIVIA. Keeping it separate means that readers wont find it unless they are searching for more obscure information or browsing out of interest.
If is important enough to be its own article, then its inclusion in [[Optimus Prime]] certainly can be justified.
If it's important enough to be its own article, why not just make it its own article?
And, unfortunately, that's how articles on every sub-subject get created, because people often don't want to slog through editing down an overly large article. It's easier to go off and create a little article on your own, that way you get all the pride of ownership and creation and none of the hassle of editing conflicts.
That's a bit of an assumption of bad faith there and doesn't match my own experiences. When I create sub-articles it's usually by splitting pieces off of an existing article, I don't often write the material from scratch.
On 7/9/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
If is important enough to be its own article, then its inclusion in [[Optimus Prime]] certainly can be justified.
If it's important enough to be its own article, why not just make it its own article?
I don't agree that it is important enough for an article, I was just pointing out that something that others think is important enough for one doesn't qualify for removal from a larger article as WP:TRIVIA. There is a middle ground here; the choices aren't its own article vs. total purge from Wikipedia.
And, unfortunately, that's how articles on every sub-subject get created, because people often don't want to slog through editing down an overly large article. It's easier to go off and create a little article on your own, that way you get all the pride of ownership and creation and none of the hassle of editing conflicts.
That's a bit of an assumption of bad faith there and doesn't match my own experiences. When I create sub-articles it's usually by splitting pieces off of an existing article, I don't often write the material from scratch.
Bad faith? How so? I'm just positing an explanation for how these things happen. An explanation which could be one of many, not a unified field theory of article creation, so YMMV. It certainly seems more than reasonable for cases like the airline near miss which started the thread. Does anyone think that article was split off from an existing one?
Rob wrote:
On 7/9/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
And, unfortunately, that's how articles on every sub-subject get created, because people often don't want to slog through editing down an overly large article. It's easier to go off and create a little article on your own, that way you get all the pride of ownership and creation and none of the hassle of editing conflicts.
That's a bit of an assumption of bad faith there and doesn't match my own experiences. When I create sub-articles it's usually by splitting pieces off of an existing article, I don't often write the material from scratch.
Bad faith? How so? I'm just positing an explanation for how these things happen.
Your wording implied that it was _the_ explanation for how these things happen. In my experience it isn't even a common explanation for how these things happen.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
K P wrote:
Here's an article about a crash that didn't happen, to two planes on two different runways, although apparently one is in the take-off line of the other, where there were no injuries or damages to either aircraft that didn't crash into each other, with speculation about a controller error, and no NTSB report yet issued.
I love Wikipedia, Britannica eat your hear out.
One of my old favorites is up for deletion right now, for the fourth time, and looks likely to go the way of the dodo this time around. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimus_Prime_%28person%29. Just in time for the release of the new Transformers movie, too.
It was heavily referenced, non-controversial, and a fun little piece of trivia. I really don't understand why some editors feel the need to get rid of such stuff. There are days that Wikipedia makes me depressed.
I've added my vote. Perhaps too each previous "keep" decision should automatically add two keep votes to a nomination; each "no consensus" should add one.
Perhaps we should also ban the use of that great weasel word "obviously" from all deletion nomination statements.
Ec
On 7/7/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Perhaps we should also ban the use of that great weasel word "obviously" from all deletion nomination statements.
Don't forget the N-word. Let's ban all words derived from "notable".
—C.W.
On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 19:23:11 -0500, "Charlotte Webb" charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
Let's ban all words derived from "notable".
Sorry, we're not able to do that.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/8/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
K P wrote:
Here's an article about a crash that didn't happen, to two planes on two different runways, although apparently one is in the take-off line of the other, where there were no injuries or damages to either aircraft that didn't crash into each other, with speculation about a controller error, and no NTSB report yet issued.
I love Wikipedia, Britannica eat your hear out.
One of my old favorites is up for deletion right now, for the fourth time, and looks likely to go the way of the dodo this time around. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimus_Prime_%28person%29. Just in time for the release of the new Transformers movie, too.
It was heavily referenced, non-controversial, and a fun little piece of trivia. I really don't understand why some editors feel the need to get rid of such stuff. There are days that Wikipedia makes me depressed.
I've added my vote. Perhaps too each previous "keep" decision should automatically add two keep votes to a nomination; each "no consensus" should add one.
Perhaps we should also ban the use of that great weasel word "obviously" from all deletion nomination statements.
1. AfD is not a vote; 2. Admins who count votes should not be closing AfDs. 3. An objective vote count is rarely an accurate gauge of whether an article ought to be kept or deleted; admins should be taking into account other factors like AfDs when they gauge the consensus of the debate.
Johnleemk
On 08/07/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
- AfD is not a vote;
- Admins who count votes should not be closing AfDs.
- An objective vote count is rarely an accurate gauge of whether an
article ought to be kept or deleted; admins should be taking into account other factors like AfDs when they gauge the consensus of the debate.
Johnleemk
Again the redefinition of the word "consensus" to avoid meaning general agreement. No-one should ever have to "gauge" the consensus - if it is there, it's there - i.e. general agreement all round. If you don't have that, you don't have consensus. Admins should never have to make "controversial" decisions if decision-making in Wikipedia were actually by consensus.
Now if people want to stop pretending, and call what Wikipedia looks for in decision making something other than consensus - fine. Otherwise decisions should strictly not be taken where there is not consensus. Of course this would bring the project to a standstill. So I suggest people stop using the word "consensus".
I think a lot of people on Wikipedia now have a definition of "consensus" that means "Wikipedia's decision making mechanism" (whatever that actually happens to be in any given debate; sometimes genuine consensus, other times vote counting, super-majority, convincing arguments, everyone but a small minority or one or two individuals in agreement, whatever the action-taker gets away with, and so on)
Zoney
On 08/07/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
Again the redefinition of the word "consensus" to avoid meaning general agreement. No-one should ever have to "gauge" the consensus - if it is there, it's there - i.e. general agreement all round.
This is not entirely accurate. There are many instances where people are in broad consensus on what to do with no idea of what they've actually decided... but then, you're not gauging consensus per se, you're gauging what it's consensus for.
[You know the idea. Everyone in agreement that something in this vague line ought to be done, but...]
On 7/8/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/07/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
- AfD is not a vote;
- Admins who count votes should not be closing AfDs.
- An objective vote count is rarely an accurate gauge of whether an
article ought to be kept or deleted; admins should be taking into account other factors like AfDs when they gauge the consensus of the debate.
Johnleemk
Again the redefinition of the word "consensus" to avoid meaning general agreement. No-one should ever have to "gauge" the consensus - if it is there, it's there - i.e. general agreement all round. If you don't have that, you don't have consensus. Admins should never have to make "controversial" decisions if decision-making in Wikipedia were actually by consensus.
Now if people want to stop pretending, and call what Wikipedia looks for in decision making something other than consensus - fine. Otherwise decisions should strictly not be taken where there is not consensus. Of course this would bring the project to a standstill. So I suggest people stop using the word "consensus".
I think a lot of people on Wikipedia now have a definition of "consensus" that means "Wikipedia's decision making mechanism" (whatever that actually happens to be in any given debate; sometimes genuine consensus, other times vote counting, super-majority, convincing arguments, everyone but a small minority or one or two individuals in agreement, whatever the action-taker gets away with, and so on)
Hehe, that is so true. However, I think in a lot of cases, there is no consensus per se, but a decision is reached by taking other factors into account. For instance, if an AfD has five people saying "delete", and another five saying "merge and delete", then an admin would probably close it as a "merge and redirect" because there is no consensus to delete the content, but there is consensus that there should not be an article at the title; why we can't merge and delete should be obvious to most people reading this list.
I guess what I'm saying is that consensus does work in about half to two thirds of cases, and in the rest, admins try to use common sense, which has its pitfalls because common sense is rarely all too common. Consensus is the foundation of Wikipedia decision-making, but there are other factors involved.
Johnleemk
We are confusing the case of a near-disaster which will remain important because t is seen as an indication of the inadequacy of the air transport safety system,--and was discussed as such, with the case of an individual doing a meaningless name change which has no significance except a a note on the popularity of the fictional character. I voted to keep the first and delete the second. I think this sort of discussion must go case by case. DGG
On 7/8/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/8/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/07/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
- AfD is not a vote;
- Admins who count votes should not be closing AfDs.
- An objective vote count is rarely an accurate gauge of whether an
article ought to be kept or deleted; admins should be taking into account other factors like AfDs when they gauge the consensus of the debate.
Johnleemk
Again the redefinition of the word "consensus" to avoid meaning general agreement. No-one should ever have to "gauge" the consensus - if it is there, it's there - i.e. general agreement all round. If you don't have that, you don't have consensus. Admins should never have to make "controversial" decisions if decision-making in Wikipedia were actually by consensus.
Now if people want to stop pretending, and call what Wikipedia looks for in decision making something other than consensus - fine. Otherwise decisions should strictly not be taken where there is not consensus. Of course this would bring the project to a standstill. So I suggest people stop using the word "consensus".
I think a lot of people on Wikipedia now have a definition of "consensus" that means "Wikipedia's decision making mechanism" (whatever that actually happens to be in any given debate; sometimes genuine consensus, other times vote counting, super-majority, convincing arguments, everyone but a small minority or one or two individuals in agreement, whatever the action-taker gets away with, and so on)
Hehe, that is so true. However, I think in a lot of cases, there is no consensus per se, but a decision is reached by taking other factors into account. For instance, if an AfD has five people saying "delete", and another five saying "merge and delete", then an admin would probably close it as a "merge and redirect" because there is no consensus to delete the content, but there is consensus that there should not be an article at the title; why we can't merge and delete should be obvious to most people reading this list.
I guess what I'm saying is that consensus does work in about half to two thirds of cases, and in the rest, admins try to use common sense, which has its pitfalls because common sense is rarely all too common. Consensus is the foundation of Wikipedia decision-making, but there are other factors involved.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l