VfD was renamed to AfD because it was supposed to be less about voting.
Yet people still vote.
People should instead bring forward arguments; some pro-keep and some pro-delete. Someone who has several arguments for or against a particular article, should mention them all. Someone who just agrees with an already-posted argument should not post because they wouldn't be adding anything.
Example:
Someone nominating an article might write:
== [[Dr. Norma Nated]] == === Arguments for deletion === * The article is badly written. * The article does not establish notability. === Arguments against deletion ===
Someone else may come across the article and think it should stay. They should be made to think about why they think it should stay, example:
=== Arguments against deletion === * Dr. Norma Nated has published scientific papers [1] as well as at least one book [2], which establishes her notability.
Another person might discover an argument as being fallacious. They should move it to a new section:
== [[Dr. Norma Nated]] == === Arguments for deletion === * The article does not establish notability. === Arguments against deletion === * Dr. Norma Nated has published scientific papers [1] as well as at least one book [2], which establishes her notability. === Fallacious arguments === * (for) The article is badly written. ** Can be improved, thus not a criterion for deletion.
Arguments why I think this system is better:
* Voting merely expresses a single individual's opinion, but AfD should establish the community concensus.
* It is more wiki-like. In the same way as nobody "owns" an article, nobody should embody an argument (but people do embody an opinion and hence a vote). Everybody should be able to edit every argument, such that the valid ones remain.
* You can disagree with the sentiment to keep or to delete, but to do so, you have to explain why (by bringing forward a counter-argument).
* You can't just disagree with a valid argument; you have to expose a fallacy in it, or provide a valid counter-argument.
* AfD items no longer need to be "closed". The article can be deleted if after five days there are good arguments to delete, but if after 10 days a new argument comes along (e.g. the article has been improved and referenced in the meantime, the person has suddenly gained notability, etc.) the same discussion can be resumed (and "previously deleted as per AfD" would not work as a pro-deletion argument, thereby increasing focus on content and decreasing focus on process).
* It reduces workload because you don't need to do anything in order to show you agree.
* It reduces workload because you have to put more effort into a nomination, reducing the amount of nominations.
Discuss. :) Timwi
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Timwi wrote:
VfD was renamed to AfD because it was supposed to be less about voting.
Yet people still vote.
People should instead bring forward arguments; some pro-keep and some pro-delete. Someone who has several arguments for or against a particular article, should mention them all. Someone who just agrees with an already-posted argument should not post because they wouldn't be adding anything.
# Endorse this proposal and wonder where it is on Wikipedia. ~~~~
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 10/23/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
VfD was renamed to AfD because it was supposed to be less about voting.
Yet people still vote.
People should instead bring forward arguments; some pro-keep and some pro-delete. Someone who has several arguments for or against a particular article, should mention them all. Someone who just agrees with an already-posted argument should not post because they wouldn't be adding anything.
Concur: voting violates the principle of consensus.
Example:
Someone nominating an article might write:
== [[Dr. Norma Nated]] == === Arguments for deletion === * The article is badly written. * The article does not establish notability. === Arguments against deletion ===
Someone else may come across the article and think it should stay. They should be made to think about why they think it should stay, example:
=== Arguments against deletion === * Dr. Norma Nated has published scientific papers [1] as well as at least one book [2], which establishes her notability.
Another person might discover an argument as being fallacious. They should move it to a new section:
== [[Dr. Norma Nated]] == === Arguments for deletion === * The article does not establish notability. === Arguments against deletion === * Dr. Norma Nated has published scientific papers [1] as well as at least one book [2], which establishes her notability. === Fallacious arguments === * (for) The article is badly written. ** Can be improved, thus not a criterion for deletion.
Arguments why I think this system is better:
- Voting merely expresses a single individual's opinion, but AfD should establish the community concensus.
True.
- It is more wiki-like. In the same way as nobody "owns" an article, nobody should embody an argument (but people do embody an opinion and hence a vote). Everybody should be able to edit every argument, such that the valid ones remain.
True.
- You can disagree with the sentiment to keep or to delete, but to do so, you have to explain why (by bringing forward a counter-argument).
True.
- You can't just disagree with a valid argument; you have to expose a fallacy in it, or provide a valid counter-argument.
Brilliant.
- AfD items no longer need to be "closed". The article can be deleted if after five days there are good arguments to delete, but if after 10 days a new argument comes along (e.g. the article has been improved and referenced in the meantime, the person has suddenly gained notability, etc.) the same discussion can be resumed (and "previously deleted as per AfD" would not work as a pro-deletion argument, thereby increasing focus on content and decreasing focus on process).
This would make deletion more subject to the admin's inherent bias; "good arguments" is a very general term.
- It reduces workload because you don't need to do anything in order to show you agree.
But then you can't use AfD to inflate your edit count! </sarcasm>
- It reduces workload because you have to put more effort into a nomination, reducing the amount of nominations.
The backlog would be much more manageable (Good Thing).
Discuss. :) Timwi
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What I don't like about this is that it'd most likely end in edit warring to move arguments in and out of different sections. A section at the top containing a summary of arguments for and against deletion/keep/merge, etc could be created by any wikipedian in any AfD, and might make closing easier, but I think the straw poll format is still pretty useful.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
What I don't like about this is that it'd most likely end in edit warring to move arguments in and out of different sections. A section at the top containing a summary of arguments for and against deletion/keep/merge, etc could be created by any wikipedian in any AfD, and might make closing easier, but I think the straw poll format is still pretty useful.
The "Fallacious arguments" section is probably a non-starter, as you say. How about instead simply having each argument for or against deletion be commented upon, and then the comments commented upon, etc., in the manner that's already done with votes containing arguments? When the AfD finally closes, it'll be up to the closer to decide what weight to give an argument based on whether it appears to have been refuted well.
Of course, this is going to result in a lot of debates over the interpretation of the closing admin since they'll no longer be able to point to an objective vote tally and say "the numbers are that!". But there's already debates over "errors" as it is, whether to include or exclude questionable votes and such, so perhaps not a huge amount would change. Build in some sort of appeals process (AfD needs one _anyway_, as I argued in the earlier "AfD grinds on" thread) and perhaps that will reduce the stress of "incorrectly" deleted articles.
On 10/23/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
- Voting merely expresses a single individual's opinion, but AfD should establish the community concensus.
Nothing to stop you debateing along with voteing. See [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoism]] for an example
- It is more wiki-like. In the same way as nobody "owns" an article, nobody should embody an argument (but people do embody an opinion and hence a vote). Everybody should be able to edit every argument, such that the valid ones remain.
Have fun trying to inforce that one. Particulary have fun trying to define valid
- You can disagree with the sentiment to keep or to delete, but to do so, you have to explain why (by bringing forward a counter-argument).
Nothing exists to stop you bring forward an argument (indeed I'm currently trying a policy of never voteing and always commenting (which reminds me we never did sort out the copyright issues at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rochester Community Schools]].
- You can't just disagree with a valid argument; you have to expose a fallacy in it, or provide a valid counter-argument.
Can't find an SI unit for defineing the level of validness of an argument.
- AfD items no longer need to be "closed". The article can be deleted if after five days there are good arguments to delete, but if after 10 days a new argument comes along (e.g. the article has been improved and referenced in the meantime, the person has suddenly gained notability, etc.) the same discussion can be resumed (and "previously deleted as per AfD" would not work as a pro-deletion argument, thereby increasing focus on content and decreasing focus on process).
Can't find an SI unit for measureing goodness. Incerdently if you want battles that go on forever can I suggest you get involved in areas related to the middle east conflict .
- It reduces workload because you don't need to do anything in order to show you agree.
Huh?
- It reduces workload because you have to put more effort into a nomination, reducing the amount of nominations.
That is ment to be a good thing?
Discuss. :) Timwi
Go and spend ten min doing something useful on wikipedia to make up for the time I have just wasted responding to you.
-- geni
I propose CRPFDTNAC, for Continually Renamed Page for Deletion That Never Actually Changes - it seems most accurate of all.
-Snowspinner
On Oct 23, 2005, at 11:01 AM, Timwi wrote:
VfD was renamed to AfD because it was supposed to be less about voting.
Yet people still vote.
People should instead bring forward arguments; some pro-keep and some pro-delete. Someone who has several arguments for or against a particular article, should mention them all. Someone who just agrees with an already-posted argument should not post because they wouldn't be adding anything.
Example:
Someone nominating an article might write:
== [[Dr. Norma Nated]] == === Arguments for deletion === * The article is badly written. * The article does not establish notability. === Arguments against deletion ===
Someone else may come across the article and think it should stay. They should be made to think about why they think it should stay, example:
=== Arguments against deletion === * Dr. Norma Nated has published scientific papers [1] as well as at least one book [2], which establishes her notability.
Another person might discover an argument as being fallacious. They should move it to a new section:
== [[Dr. Norma Nated]] == === Arguments for deletion === * The article does not establish notability. === Arguments against deletion === * Dr. Norma Nated has published scientific papers [1] as well as at least one book [2], which establishes her notability. === Fallacious arguments === * (for) The article is badly written. ** Can be improved, thus not a criterion for deletion.
Arguments why I think this system is better:
- Voting merely expresses a single individual's opinion, but AfD
should establish the community concensus.
- It is more wiki-like. In the same way as nobody "owns" an article, nobody should embody an argument (but people do embody an opinion
and hence a vote). Everybody should be able to edit every argument, such that the valid ones remain.
- You can disagree with the sentiment to keep or to delete, but to do so, you have to explain why (by bringing forward a counter-
argument).
You can't just disagree with a valid argument; you have to expose a fallacy in it, or provide a valid counter-argument.
AfD items no longer need to be "closed". The article can be
deleted if after five days there are good arguments to delete, but if after 10 days a new argument comes along (e.g. the article has been improved and referenced in the meantime, the person has suddenly gained notability, etc.) the same discussion can be resumed (and "previously deleted as per AfD" would not work as a pro-deletion argument, thereby increasing focus on content and decreasing focus on process).
- It reduces workload because you don't need to do anything in
order to show you agree.
- It reduces workload because you have to put more effort into a nomination, reducing the amount of nominations.
Discuss. :) Timwi
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: Timwi
VfD was renamed to AfD because it was supposed to be less about voting.
.......
Discuss. :)
#'''Keep'''. ~~~~ (reasoning not included)
Just kidding, I never get involved with AFD at the moment as a kind of silent protest at the silly way it functions. I do think the idea, or some variant of it is great, and will go a long way to fixing this. However, I think the "Uncontested deletions" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_reform/Proposals/Uncontested... is good too, some hybrid of the two ideas may be a really good solution.
Martin Richards Martin@velocitymanager.com wrote: From: Timwi
VfD was renamed to AfD because it was supposed to be less about voting.
.......
Discuss. :)
#'''Keep'''. ~~~~ (reasoning not included)
Just kidding, I never get involved with AFD at the moment as a >>kind of silent protest at the silly way it functions. I do think the idea, or >>some variant of it is great, and will go a long way to fixing this. However, >>I think the "Uncontested deletions" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_reform/Proposals/Uncontested... is good too, some hybrid of the two ideas may be a really good >>solution.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think the uncontested deletions proposal has a lot of potential as a stand alone way to funnel off easy and obvious deletion canidates from AFD. I'd like to hear more opinions about it on it's talk page..
Brian
Brian Haws wrote:
Martin Richards Martin@velocitymanager.com wrote:
Just kidding, I never get involved with AFD at the moment as a >>kind of silent protest at the silly way it functions. I do think the idea, or >>some variant of it is great, and will go a long way to fixing this. However, >>I think the "Uncontested deletions" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_reform/Proposals/Uncontested... is good too, some hybrid of the two ideas may be a really good >>solution.
I think the uncontested deletions proposal has a lot of potential as a stand alone way to funnel off easy and obvious deletion canidates from AFD. I'd like to hear more opinions about it on it's talk page..
It will clearly be more efficient. AFD fails because it broadcasts the fact that an article is proposed for deletion. By confining the deletion discussion to the page itself (and its talk page, of course) it will limit interference by inclusionists who do not recognize the value of removing cruft from Wikipedia.
Ec
In that case, I will oppose it strongly. I am not opposed to the removal of things that are clearly of little note but any process should be open and accountable. One man's cruft is often another man's interest and should not be removed without due process. Regards *Keith*
On 10/24/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Brian Haws wrote:
Martin Richards Martin@velocitymanager.com wrote:
Just kidding, I never get involved with AFD at the moment as a >>kind
of
silent protest at the silly way it functions. I do think the idea, or
some
variant of it is great, and will go a long way to fixing this. However,
I think the "Uncontested deletions"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_reform/Proposals/Uncontested...
is good too, some hybrid of the two ideas may be a really good
solution.
I think the uncontested deletions proposal has a lot of potential as a
stand alone way to funnel off easy and obvious deletion canidates from AFD. I'd like to hear more opinions about it on it's talk page..
It will clearly be more efficient. AFD fails because it broadcasts the fact that an article is proposed for deletion. By confining the deletion discussion to the page itself (and its talk page, of course) it will limit interference by inclusionists who do not recognize the value of removing cruft from Wikipedia.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Brian Haws wrote:
Martin Richards Martin@velocitymanager.com wrote:
Just kidding, I never get involved with AFD at the moment as a
kind of silent protest at the silly way it functions. I do think
the idea, or >>some variant of it is great, and will go a long way to fixing this. However, >>I think the "Uncontested deletions" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_reform/Proposals/Uncontested... is good too, some hybrid of the two ideas may be a really good
solution.
I think the uncontested deletions proposal has a lot of potential as a stand alone way to funnel off easy and obvious deletion canidates from AFD. I'd like to hear more opinions about it on it's talk page..
It will clearly be more efficient. AFD fails because it broadcasts the fact that an article is proposed for deletion. By confining the deletion discussion to the page itself (and its talk page, of course) it will limit interference by inclusionists who do not recognize the value of removing cruft from Wikipedia.
Ray, I severely hope you're joking...
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
Timwi wrote:
VfD was renamed to AfD because it was supposed to be less about voting.
Yet people still vote.
People should instead bring forward arguments; some pro-keep and some pro-delete. Someone who has several arguments for or against a particular article, should mention them all. Someone who just agrees with an already-posted argument should not post because they wouldn't be adding anything.
Strong yes! What Timwi said!
On 10/23/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
VfD was renamed to AfD because it was supposed to be less about voting.
Didn't it also have something to do with the fact that its sibling categories were names things like "Templates for deletion" and "Categories for deletion"?
I support the idea of forcing people to actually argue their view, but I see a lot of problems with the current idea. 1) The decision of the closing admin is always going to be questioned. 2) Having only arguments doesn't show how many people actually endorse these views. 3) Debates on schools and roads will probably have an equal amount of delete and keep arguments of which the validness is impossible to establish as both "sides" think the other side is wrong and end up in endless counter aguments.
And if we were to force actual arguments we should also find a way to make people actually read an article and vote based on its merit and not a view on the general category of articles.
--Mgm
You could possibly have concurring opinions at the bottom of each argument similar to Supreme Court decisions.
Keith
User:Capitalistroadster
On 10/24/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I support the idea of forcing people to actually argue their view, but I see a lot of problems with the current idea.
- The decision of the closing admin is always going to be questioned.
- Having only arguments doesn't show how many people actually endorse
these views. 3) Debates on schools and roads will probably have an equal amount of delete and keep arguments of which the validness is impossible to establish as both "sides" think the other side is wrong and end up in endless counter aguments.
And if we were to force actual arguments we should also find a way to make people actually read an article and vote based on its merit and not a view on the general category of articles.
--Mgm _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
One of the problems with the current voting system is that people don't feel obligated to respond to arguments that are "obviously wrong".
I've seen a lot of AfD arguments where a clueless newbie comes in and says, "This page isn't hurting anyone and I spent a lot of time on it". It would be easy to post a reply, with quick pointers to [[WP:Verifiability]] and [[WP:NOT]], but half the time no one bothers. It's easier to just type " '''Delete''' nn -- ~~~~ ", after all. So the user is left with the impression that the decision process is arbitrary and mean.
I've been running into the other side of this on CfD. Someone nominated a bunch of categories that people were using on their userpages, including some sandbox pages of mine. I've asked several times why the pages are harmful, but people seem less interested in discussion when they're already winning the vote, and simply say that userpage organization "isn't what categories are for".
Should "no one addressed my argument" be a valid reason to not close a deletion request? I'm starting to think so -- most of the traditional arguments could be addressed with a quick wikilink, and anything that couldn't be handled that way should probably get talked about.
-- User:Creidieki
M. Creidieki Crouch wrote:
I've been running into the other side of this on CfD. Someone nominated a bunch of categories that people were using on their userpages, including some sandbox pages of mine. I've asked several times why the pages are harmful, but people seem less interested in discussion when they're already winning the vote, and simply say that userpage organization "isn't what categories are for".
I can understand their argument. Could it be solved by two category systems in separate namespaces. One would pretty well function like the present categories to provide a topical index for articles. The new one could be used for the administrative interests of people who do a lot of editing. Administrative categories (or whatever we choose to call them) could be deleted for lack of interest in much the same way that sysops can be removed from the list when they have been absent for an extended time.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I can understand their argument. Could it be solved by two category systems in separate namespaces. One would pretty well function like the present categories to provide a topical index for articles. The new one could be used for the administrative interests of people who do a lot of editing. Administrative categories (or whatever we choose to call them) could be deleted for lack of interest in much the same way that sysops can be removed from the list when they have been absent for an extended time.
"Administrative categories" would also solve the long-standing problem I have with the "Cricket subcategories" category, my general dislike of the "stub" categories, and other similar cases that may crop up elsewhere. It'd be sort of like how the Wikipedia: namespace fuctions - it'd be for stuff that's handy for editing, but which should be excluded from "purely for use" versions like our many mirrors or the eventual 1.0 version.
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
I support the idea of forcing people to actually argue their view, but I see a lot of problems with the current idea.
- The decision of the closing admin is always going to be questioned.
Since you've used the word "always", clearly you're aware that this is not a problem specifically of my proposal and therefore not an argument against my proposal.
- Having only arguments doesn't show how many people actually endorse
these views.
But that's the whole point. It shouldn't be *necessary* to show "how many" people "endorse" anything -- "endorse" is just another euphemism for "vote for", as is apparent in the words "how many". Instead, it should only be necessary to explain reasoning. If the only reasoning that makes perfect sense is one that favours deletion or keepage, then this should be all that's necessary, regardless of any counts or any "how many people".
Timwi