This is an interesting one. An article "List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C." was listed for deletion recently but kept because of no consensus. Someone thought "dang it, AfD is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote", and went to Wikipedia:Deletion review (DRV) to try to overturn the result for what he thought were weak arguments to keep.
Well that's all very well, but DRV (perhaps uniquely in all Wikipedia forums) does not operate by consensus but by majority vote. So it looks to me like we've got a possible loophole where someone dissatisfied with an AfD result can go and have the article deleted anyway on a straight majority vote. As it happens a lot of people who looked at the article in DRV thought it should be deleted (which isn't unusual--it's part of the culture in DRV)
So, I thought I'd give a second AfD a go. If the first AfD wasn't clear enough, let's try for a second. I accordingly relisted the article for deletion, explaining the circumstances and recommending keep.
Six people promptly said "keep".
Whereupon someone involved in the attempt to overturn the first deletion discussion and delete the article "unlisted* the article from AfD.
This is quite a quandary.
I've no doubt that this fellow is acting in good faith and genuinely believes that we cannot have a second AfD while the first is being reviewed, but I cannot see why not especially if (as seems here) it's clarifying that yes, Wikipedians really do want this article to be kept.
However he's not really granting good faith, is he? He's removed the second AfD listing. I restored once but I don't edit war so I'm not going to get into that stuff.
So I turn to you, dear readers.
How am I to ensure that, if this article is deleted, it is only deleted on the basis of consensus?
Tony Sidaway wrote:
This is an interesting one. An article "List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C." was listed for deletion recently but kept because of no consensus. Someone thought "dang it, AfD is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote", and went to Wikipedia:Deletion review (DRV) to try to overturn the result for what he thought were weak arguments to keep.
Well that's all very well, but DRV (perhaps uniquely in all Wikipedia forums) does not operate by consensus but by majority vote. So it looks to me like we've got a possible loophole where someone dissatisfied with an AfD result can go and have the article deleted anyway on a straight majority vote. As it happens a lot of people who looked at the article in DRV thought it should be deleted (which isn't unusual--it's part of the culture in DRV)
So, I thought I'd give a second AfD a go. If the first AfD wasn't clear enough, let's try for a second. I accordingly relisted the article for deletion, explaining the circumstances and recommending keep.
Six people promptly said "keep".
Whereupon someone involved in the attempt to overturn the first deletion discussion and delete the article "unlisted* the article from AfD.
This is quite a quandary.
I've no doubt that this fellow is acting in good faith and genuinely believes that we cannot have a second AfD while the first is being reviewed, but I cannot see why not especially if (as seems here) it's clarifying that yes, Wikipedians really do want this article to be kept.
However he's not really granting good faith, is he? He's removed the second AfD listing. I restored once but I don't edit war so I'm not going to get into that stuff.
So I turn to you, dear readers.
How am I to ensure that, if this article is deleted, it is only deleted on the basis of consensus?
1. Is the information verifiable? 2. Does the article contain original research? 3. Does the article cite sources? 4. Is the information presented in the article useful and of an encyclopedic nature? 5. Is this whole mess driving good editors from the project?
If you answered "Yes", "No", "Yes", "Yes" and "Yes", Congratulations! Please speedy keep the article and block those who persistantly disrupt the project by their lack of common sense.
Regards,
I'm not going to get drawn into editing that nomination again. SimonP restored the discussion to AfD but R. Fiend has now closed it, falsely claiming that the nominaiton was made in bad faith.
Now I don't get angry easily, but I do think something's amiss here. I'm trying to hold a second deletion nomination and things are going heavily in favor of keep, and the person who apparently thinks the article should be deleted is thwarting the discussion and claiming that I am, in effect, lying when I say that I want AfD, and not DRV, to make the decision to delete this article, if it is to be deleted. Meanwhile there is a vote going on in Deletion review which is apparently designed to overturn the original no-consensus keep, and delete the article.
As I say, I don't easily get angry. But sometimes I do get a little bit suspicious.
On 1/30/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
- Is the information verifiable?
- Does the article contain original research?
- Does the article cite sources?
- Is the information presented in the article useful and of an
encyclopedic nature? 5. Is this whole mess driving good editors from the project?
If you answered "Yes", "No", "Yes", "Yes" and "Yes", Congratulations! Please speedy keep the article and block those who persistantly disrupt the project by their lack of common sense.
If you're still talking about [[List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C.]], it's not of an encyclopedic nature. It's not even an article, it's a list. Lists have to be treated differently, that's why there used to be "Lists for Deletion", but Wikipedia wasn't big enough to handle such a minor issue on a separate page, so it was merged into VFD. In hindsight, the merge was a mistake.
Anthony
You don't even need question 2. Original research isn't verifiable by reference to reputable sources, so if you answer Yes to question 2 you must necessarily answer No to question 1.
Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote: On 1/30/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
- Is the information verifiable?
- Does the article contain original research?
- Does the article cite sources?
- Is the information presented in the article useful and of an
encyclopedic nature? 5. Is this whole mess driving good editors from the project?
If you answered "Yes", "No", "Yes", "Yes" and "Yes", Congratulations! Please speedy keep the article and block those who persistantly disrupt the project by their lack of common sense.
If you're still talking about [[List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C.]], it's not of an encyclopedic nature. It's not even an article, it's a list. Lists have to be treated differently, that's why there used to be "Lists for Deletion", but Wikipedia wasn't big enough to handle such a minor issue on a separate page, so it was merged into VFD. In hindsight, the merge was a mistake.
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro
If you're still talking about [[List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C.]], it's not of an encyclopedic nature.
Why not? Encyclopaedias have lists and indices. This one's thematic.
Speaking from experience, I probably could have used this a year back, when I wandered down the wrong state avenue from [[Dupont Circle]] in search of the Oz Embassy, and wondered why we seemed to be sharing space with a pizza restaurant. A positive but unusual move IMHO, but on inquiry not correct, and I retraced my frozen steps.
Peter (Skyring)
On 1/29/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
This is an interesting one. An article "List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C." was listed for deletion recently but kept because of no consensus. Someone thought "dang it, AfD is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote", and went to Wikipedia:Deletion review (DRV) to try to overturn the result for what he thought were weak arguments to keep.
Well that's all very well, but DRV (perhaps uniquely in all Wikipedia forums) does not operate by consensus but by majority vote. So it looks to me like we've got a possible loophole where someone dissatisfied with an AfD result can go and have the article deleted anyway on a straight majority vote. As it happens a lot of people who looked at the article in DRV thought it should be deleted (which isn't unusual--it's part of the culture in DRV)
So, I thought I'd give a second AfD a go. If the first AfD wasn't clear enough, let's try for a second. I accordingly relisted the article for deletion, explaining the circumstances and recommending keep.
Six people promptly said "keep".
Whereupon someone involved in the attempt to overturn the first deletion discussion and delete the article "unlisted* the article from AfD.
This is quite a quandary.
I've no doubt that this fellow is acting in good faith and genuinely believes that we cannot have a second AfD while the first is being reviewed, but I cannot see why not especially if (as seems here) it's clarifying that yes, Wikipedians really do want this article to be kept.
However he's not really granting good faith, is he? He's removed the second AfD listing. I restored once but I don't edit war so I'm not going to get into that stuff.
So I turn to you, dear readers.
How am I to ensure that, if this article is deleted, it is only deleted on the basis of consensus? _______________________________________________ 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 that all of us, at least from this issue alone, can see that DRV is probably worse off than any of the other *FD pages. It is hopelessly confusing, with all the different options, and functions contrary to the consensus-driven spirit of Wikipedia. I think the only way that you can get a result for the page using a measure of community consensus as a gauge is by using AFD. DRV is not going to give consensus: it will give you votes. And as we all know, [[Meatball:VotingIsEvil]].
-- Ben Emmel Wikipedia - User:Bratsche bratsche1@gmail.com "A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees." -- William Blake
On 1/30/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Well that's all very well, but DRV (perhaps uniquely in all Wikipedia forums) does not operate by consensus but by majority vote.
If so, supermajority vote (just nitpicking)
/habj
On 1/30/06, Habj sweetadelaide@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/30/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Well that's all very well, but DRV (perhaps uniquely in all Wikipedia forums) does not operate by consensus but by majority vote.
If so, supermajority vote (just nitpicking)
I don't thnk so. I believe DRV inherited from Votes for Undeletion a majority vote system (with a small quota, say three voters) for overturning a result.
As far as I'm aware there has never been quite this blatant an attempt to overturn a consensus-based AfD result on DRV, nor to prevent a legitimate AfD discussion.
On 1/30/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/30/06, Habj sweetadelaide@gmail.com wrote:
If so, supermajority vote (just nitpicking)
I don't thnk so. I believe DRV inherited from Votes for Undeletion a majority vote system (with a small quota, say three voters) for overturning a result.
I can not remember where, but somewhere at enwiki it says that "concensus" is in some cases defined as a supermajority number, different in different cases: 70% at VfD, more at RfA etc. Is that not correct? Too bad I can not say the name of the page, I know it's there... or at least was, less than two months ago.
/habj
As far as I'm aware there has never been quite this blatant an attempt
to overturn a consensus-based AfD result on DRV, nor to prevent a legitimate AfD discussion. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/30/06, Habj sweetadelaide@gmail.com wrote:
I can not remember where, but somewhere at enwiki it says that "concensus" is in some cases defined as a supermajority number
This numerical intepretation was in the Consensus article for a while, but it was removed. Although one person favored it strongly and championed it for a long while, there was no consensus for it.
This user is "gaming the system". Isn't there some policy that explicitly forbids this?
Ryan
On 1/30/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/30/06, Habj sweetadelaide@gmail.com wrote:
I can not remember where, but somewhere at enwiki it says that
"concensus"
is in some cases defined as a supermajority number
This numerical intepretation was in the Consensus article for a while, but it was removed. Although one person favored it strongly and championed it for a long while, there was no consensus for it. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/30/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
This user is "gaming the system". Isn't there some policy that explicitly forbids this?
Which user - Tony?
-Matt
No, the one he is talking about, who tried to use DRV to overrule a no-consensus AFD because it was more likely to get the result he wanted. This is a picture-perfect example of how process should NOT be (ab)used.
Ryan
On 1/30/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/30/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
This user is "gaming the system". Isn't there some policy that
explicitly
forbids this?
Which user - Tony?
-Matt _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
This isn't directed at anyone in particular, but a legit question for the group:
If someone disagrees with a deletion result, then lists it on DRV, this is generally (with the exception of vanity self-promoters, trolls, and the like) accepted as a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia.
If someone disagrees with a keep result, then lists it on DRV, this is seen by many as an "abuse of process" and an effort to "get the result he wanted".
It seems that if one type of result can be reviewed and possibly overturned, what's wrong with reviewing another type of result? What's the difference?
On 1/30/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
No, the one he is talking about, who tried to use DRV to overrule a no-consensus AFD because it was more likely to get the result he wanted. This is a picture-perfect example of how process should NOT be (ab)used.
On 1/30/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
It seems that if one type of result can be reviewed and possibly overturned, what's wrong with reviewing another type of result? What's the difference?
There is nothing to stop you relisting an article on AFD.
-- geni
Rob wrote:
This isn't directed at anyone in particular, but a legit question for the group:
If someone disagrees with a deletion result, then lists it on DRV, this is generally (with the exception of vanity self-promoters, trolls, and the like) accepted as a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia.
If someone disagrees with a keep result, then lists it on DRV, this is seen by many as an "abuse of process" and an effort to "get the result he wanted".
The problem I've got with this situation is that the person who listed this on DRV wanted the "keep" result to be overturned _and the article deleted as a result._ He's essentially saying that the default assumption should be that articles are deleteworthy until proven otherwise. This is completely 180 degrees backwards.
If all someone wants to do is "overturn" a keep result there should really be no need for DRV at all, just create another AfD nomination and argue your case there. If the argument works and the new AfD returns a clear "delete", the old AfD's keep result is moot. DRV is only particularly useful for retrieving deleted stuff since you can't make an AfD nomination for an article that doesn't exist.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
DRV is only particularly useful for retrieving deleted stuff since you can't make an AfD nomination for an article that doesn't exist.
Question: Why not? If DRV is so poisonous, why not make it so that someone unhappy with a deleted article just has to convince one of the ~800 admins to give the matter the benefit of the doubt and undelete, then list on AFD again. This would basically turn DRV into a noticeboard where admins can pick up articles that are not obviously delete-worthy. Of course, doing this too often would be just as popular as repeatedly AFDing the same article over and over, and should be... discouraged. I have no sympathy for AFD, by the way (and don't want to protect it from additional workload), so if it is able to deal with the torrent of crap it is flooded with now, it can deal with the handfull of contested deletions as well.
grm_wnr
grm_wnr wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
DRV is only particularly useful for retrieving deleted stuff since you can't make an AfD nomination for an article that doesn't exist.
Question: Why not? If DRV is so poisonous, why not make it so that someone unhappy with a deleted article just has to convince one of the ~800 admins to give the matter the benefit of the doubt and undelete, then list on AFD again. This would basically turn DRV into a noticeboard where admins can pick up articles that are not obviously delete-worthy.
Sounds like a fine idea to me, if only for the sake of simplifying the deletion situation (one set of "rules" rather than two). And then once AfD gets fixed it'll solve everything at once.
"grm_wnr" grmwnr@gmail.com wrote in message news:43DEE795.7070101@gmail.com...
Bryan Derksen wrote:
DRV is only particularly useful for retrieving deleted stuff since you can't make an AfD nomination for an article that doesn't exist.
Question: Why not? If DRV is so poisonous, why not make it so that someone unhappy with a deleted article just has to convince one of the ~800 admins to give the matter the benefit of the doubt and undelete, then list on AFD again.
Because then the admin who did that would receive a sh*tst*rm of complaint about "going against process", be listed for "de-adminning", have screeds of hate written about them on [[WP:AN/I]]...and might even be blocked for [[WP:POINT]] and multitudinous other "sins"...whilst the offending article was torn down and the earth under it salted and radiated to prevent anything like it ever sullying the face of the Wikipedia again.
Need I go on?
Phil Boswell wrote:
"grm_wnr" grmwnr@gmail.com wrote in message news:43DEE795.7070101@gmail.com...
Bryan Derksen wrote:
DRV is only particularly useful for retrieving deleted stuff since you can't make an AfD nomination for an article that doesn't exist.
Question: Why not? If DRV is so poisonous, why not make it so that someone unhappy with a deleted article just has to convince one of the ~800 admins to give the matter the benefit of the doubt and undelete, then list on AFD again.
Because then the admin who did that would receive a sh*tst*rm of complaint about "going against process", be listed for "de-adminning", have screeds of hate written about them on [[WP:AN/I]]...and might even be blocked for [[WP:POINT]] and multitudinous other "sins"...whilst the offending article was torn down and the earth under it salted and radiated to prevent anything like it ever sullying the face of the Wikipedia again.
Need I go on?
I didn't put tis forward as an enticement to IAR. I think it would be a better process than we currently have. Why not make it one? Frankly, if you really mean this, we can stop this discussion right now because that would mean that any change whatsoever is impossible.
grm_wnr
P.S. What's so offensive about "storm"?
On 1/30/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
If someone disagrees with a keep result, then lists it on DRV, this is seen by many as an "abuse of process" and an effort to "get the result he wanted".
It seems that if one type of result can be reviewed and possibly overturned, what's wrong with reviewing another type of result? What's the difference?
Wikipedia suffers more from an incorrect deletion than from an incorrect keep. Sort of how society suffers more from the execution of an innocent person than the incorrect non-execution of a guilty one.
More specifically: Wikipedia suffers from having vast numbers of crap articles. It doesn't suffer a great deal from having a single crap article, if that article is not a copyvio or libel.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
Wikipedia suffers more from an incorrect deletion than from an incorrect keep. Sort of how society suffers more from the execution of an innocent person than the incorrect non-execution of a guilty one.
I don't agree with your perception of the balance. An incorrect deletion of an article is nearly nothing to us -- it can be undeleted instantly by any admin. And most incorrect deletions will be of marginal topics anyway.
And it's better to have nothing on a marginal topic than to have something that is embarassing to us in any way at all.
More specifically: Wikipedia suffers from having vast numbers of crap articles. It doesn't suffer a great deal from having a single crap article, if that article is not a copyvio or libel.
Right, but lurking copyvio and libel stuff is exactly what the core problem is.
--Jimbo
On 1/31/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Wikipedia suffers more from an incorrect deletion than from an incorrect keep. Sort of how society suffers more from the execution of an innocent person than the incorrect non-execution of a guilty one.
I don't agree with your perception of the balance. An incorrect deletion of an article is nearly nothing to us -- it can be undeleted instantly by any admin.
No it can't. Or do you wish to rethink the entire role of admins?
-- geni
On 1/31/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/31/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Wikipedia suffers more from an incorrect deletion than from an incorrect keep. Sort of how society suffers more from the execution of an innocent person than the incorrect non-execution of a guilty one.
I don't agree with your perception of the balance. An incorrect deletion of an article is nearly nothing to us -- it can be undeleted instantly by any admin.
No it can't. Or do you wish to rethink the entire role of admins?
If it's a clearly incorrect deletion, it can be undone by any admin. In my humble opinion this should be accompanied with a notice somewhere so the decision can be reviewed, but that's different from saying it can't be done.
SCZenz
On 1/31/06, SCZenz sczenz@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/31/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/31/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Wikipedia suffers more from an incorrect deletion than from an incorrect keep. Sort of how society suffers more from the execution of an innocent person than the incorrect non-execution of a guilty one.
I don't agree with your perception of the balance. An incorrect deletion of an article is nearly nothing to us -- it can be undeleted instantly by any admin.
No it can't. Or do you wish to rethink the entire role of admins?
If it's a clearly incorrect deletion, it can be undone by any admin. In my humble opinion this should be accompanied with a notice somewhere so the decision can be reviewed, but that's different from saying it can't be done.
SCZenz
If through process the community decides to delete something then it is understandable that you should have to go through process to get it undeleted. If it was speedied you can do whatever you like with it.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 1/31/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Wikipedia suffers more from an incorrect deletion than from an incorrect keep. Sort of how society suffers more from the execution of an innocent person than the incorrect non-execution of a guilty one.
I don't agree with your perception of the balance. An incorrect deletion of an article is nearly nothing to us -- it can be undeleted instantly by any admin.
No it can't. Or do you wish to rethink the entire role of admins?
I think a few people have gotten quite confused about the role of admins due to the excessive rules lawyering. Maybe they are the ones who need to rethink it.
--Jimbo
On 2/1/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I think a few people have gotten quite confused about the role of admins due to the excessive rules lawyering. Maybe they are the ones who need to rethink it.
--Jimbo
The tradition of no big deal was never consistant with capabilities allowed by the softwear. However process limts how and when those powers can be used. Take that away and admins become very powerful indeed.
-- geni
Jimmy Wales wrote:
And it's better to have nothing on a marginal topic than to have something that is embarassing to us in any way at all.
I strongly disagree with that; eventually producing a good encyclopedia ought to take precedence over immediately gaining good PR (or avoiding bad PR).
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
And it's better to have nothing on a marginal topic than to have something that is embarassing to us in any way at all.
I strongly disagree with that; eventually producing a good encyclopedia ought to take precedence over immediately gaining good PR (or avoiding bad PR).
Eventually producing a good encyclopedia is _exactly_ what I'm talking about. That's why it's better to delete crap than keep it. Having tons and tons of junk articles does not help us create a good quality encyclopedia; it encourages more of the same.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I strongly disagree with that; eventually producing a good encyclopedia ought to take precedence over immediately gaining good PR (or avoiding bad PR).
Eventually producing a good encyclopedia is _exactly_ what I'm talking about. That's why it's better to delete crap than keep it. Having tons and tons of junk articles does not help us create a good quality encyclopedia; it encourages more of the same.
It rather depends on what you mean by 'crap' and 'junk articles', I think. Some clarification of this would be appreciated.
Personally I think that, for any topic, a one-line stub is better than no article at all (and this is certainly the position adopted by [[Wikipedia:Replies to common objections]], a 'party line' I have been toeing at info-en@ correspondents for some time).
Cheers,
N.
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Eventually producing a good encyclopedia is _exactly_ what I'm talking about. That's why it's better to delete crap than keep it. Having tons and tons of junk articles does not help us create a good quality encyclopedia; it encourages more of the same.
It depends on what you mean by "junk article". If it's an article that cannot possibly prove useful to a future editor, then yes, it should be deleted. Most stubs aren't in this category, though.
If it's an article that is not good *now* as an article, but might be useful to a future editor, then it shouldn't be deleted---instead we should develop some sort of labeling system so a reader who stumbles onto it is properly notified that this article is very much a work-in-progress and not yet ready for serious use as a reference.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
instead we should develop some sort of labeling system so a reader who stumbles onto it is properly notified that this article is very much a work-in-progress and not yet ready for serious use as a reference.
-Mark
Ermmm....
Have you heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub types ?
grm_wnr
On 1/30/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
If someone disagrees with a deletion result, then lists it on DRV, this is generally (with the exception of vanity self-promoters, trolls, and the like) accepted as a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia.
If someone disagrees with a keep result, then lists it on DRV, this is seen by many as an "abuse of process" and an effort to "get the result he wanted".
I don't think there's any problem with that, although I'd prefer to see such a discussion take place inn a second noimination, on AfD, not DRV. The reason for this is that DRV is not consensus-based; discussions are effectively votes and a tally is made. At the end, the decision is overturned if there is a 75% vote to overturn it. The AfD process, by contrast, is much more in keeping with the way we try to run Wikipedia.
There are other problems with DRV, but I am addressing those with some success.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
The reason for this is that DRV is not consensus-based; discussions are effectively votes and a tally is made. At the end, the decision is overturned if there is a 75% vote to overturn it.
I've often wondered why DRV is set up this way, since it seems to be the only thing on Wikipedia that runs on voting rather than consensus (at least in theory). Was there a reason?
Cheers,
N.
On 2/1/06, Nick Boalch n.g.boalch@durham.ac.uk wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
The reason for this is that DRV is not consensus-based; discussions are effectively votes and a tally is made. At the end, the decision is overturned if there is a 75% vote to overturn it.
I've often wondered why DRV is set up this way, since it seems to be the only thing on Wikipedia that runs on voting rather than consensus (at least in theory). Was there a reason?
I think there was a fear that every failed AfD would end up on Votes for Undeletion (the original forum that was superseded by Deletion review). So there was a requirement for a majority vote plus a quorum of pro-undelete voters.
Deletion review kept the idea of hard numerical boundaries, but changed it to 50% to confirm a result (of what ever type) and 75% to overturn. There had lately been so many good articles slipping through the cracks that I had taken to just picking up the obvious ones, undeleting them (sitting out the odd block or two) and taking them to AfD, where the result was as often as not a near-unanimous keep.
It's a sick process. I think it needs to be killed. Any administrator, on his cognizance or at the request of a user, should be able to evaluate a deleted article, and if he thinks it was deleted by mistake he can clean it up, and if he thinks necessary he can take it through AfD. Having a forum for the purpose just creates a focal point for all the bad faith in the wiki in one oozing cesspit.
There are problems with the above idea. We don't want administrators fecklessly undeleting copyright infringing material and defamation, or for that matter anything resembling a steaming pile of crap. But an administrator misbehaved in this way could be stopped.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
<snip>
Any administrator, on his cognizance or at the request of a user, should be able to evaluate a deleted article, and if he thinks it was deleted by mistake he can clean it up, and if he thinks necessary he can take it through AfD. Having a forum for the purpose just creates a focal point for all the bad faith in the wiki in one oozing cesspit.
There are problems with the above idea. We don't want administrators fecklessly undeleting copyright infringing material and defamation, or for that matter anything resembling a steaming pile of crap. But an administrator misbehaved in this way could be stopped.
I've been pushing Tony to put forth a real replacement for DRV for a long time, and I'm glad he did. This is a solution I'd like to see implemented. I think admins can be trusted with this.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
John Lee wrote:
Any administrator, on his cognizance or at the request of a user, should be able to evaluate a deleted article, and if he thinks it was deleted by mistake he can clean it up, and if he thinks necessary he can take it through AfD. Having a forum for the purpose just creates a focal point for all the bad faith in the wiki in one oozing cesspit.
I've been pushing Tony to put forth a real replacement for DRV for a long time, and I'm glad he did. This is a solution I'd like to see implemented. I think admins can be trusted with this.
I agree, for what it's worth. I'd like to see this tried out, at least.
Cheers,
N.
On 2/3/06, Nick Boalch n.g.boalch@durham.ac.uk wrote:
John Lee wrote:
Any administrator, on his cognizance or at the request of a user, should be able to evaluate a deleted article, and if he thinks it was deleted by mistake he can clean it up, and if he thinks necessary he can take it through AfD. Having a forum for the purpose just creates a focal point for all the bad faith in the wiki in one oozing cesspit.
I've been pushing Tony to put forth a real replacement for DRV for a long time, and I'm glad he did. This is a solution I'd like to see implemented. I think admins can be trusted with this.
I agree, for what it's worth. I'd like to see this tried out, at least.
I don't think it is workable while some administrators will delete such articles again. It needs more discussion. I've been thinking about it. Possibly having the articles moved out of article space into project space, with a soft redirect from an appropriate template, would answer some concerns.
I would really like to have the articles editable while temporarily undeleted, but this may not be possible. Every editor being able to see them would be a start, though.
But I'm still concerned that some particularly entrenched, process-committed administrators will torpedo any such initiative, in any case. They need to be talked round. I'm just the ideas man; somebody else needs to take the ball and run with it, if it's such a good idea.
On 2/3/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think it is workable while some administrators will delete such articles again. It needs more discussion. I've been thinking about it. Possibly having the articles moved out of article space into project space, with a soft redirect from an appropriate template, would answer some concerns.
Create a review namespace and I might support a version of this
I would really like to have the articles editable while temporarily undeleted, but this may not be possible. Every editor being able to see them would be a start, though.
But I'm still concerned that some particularly entrenched, process-committed administrators will torpedo any such initiative, in any case. They need to be talked round. I'm just the ideas man; somebody else needs to take the ball and run with it, if it's such a good idea.
"process-committed administrators" are not conservatives. They just want you to stick to policy. You are of course free to change that policy by the normal root. Discusion to hammer out a soild policy suggestion. Presenting it to anyone who cares to try and gain a consensus and perhaps some further modification in order to do so. Then depending on the level of support either institute it or hold a final vote to see if you can get enough support to do so.
-- geni
"process-committed administrators" are not conservatives. They just want you to stick to policy. You are of course free to change that policy by the normal root. Discusion to hammer out a soild policy suggestion. Presenting it to anyone who cares to try and gain a consensus and perhaps some further modification in order to do so. Then depending on the level of support either institute it or hold a final vote to see if you can get enough support to do so.
Is it just me, or would things go a lot better if experimentation was part of the policymaking process? This is what Proposed Deletions is doing and it seems like a far better idea than arguing ad infinitum about improving our deletion processes.
Philip L. Welch wrote:
Is it just me, or would things go a lot better if experimentation was part of the policymaking process? This is what Proposed Deletions is doing and it seems like a far better idea than arguing ad infinitum about improving our deletion processes.
-- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
I think that's a great idea, properly setup live tests could give us experience that no amount of debate could. I wish we were more open to those kind of live tests.....
On 2/3/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
"process-committed administrators" are not conservatives. They just want you to stick to policy. You are of course free to change that policy by the normal root. Discusion to hammer out a soild policy suggestion. Presenting it to anyone who cares to try and gain a consensus and perhaps some further modification in order to do so. Then depending on the level of support either institute it or hold a final vote to see if you can get enough support to do so.
Is it just me, or would things go a lot better if experimentation was part of the policymaking process? This is what Proposed Deletions is doing and it seems like a far better idea than arguing ad infinitum about improving our deletion processes.
Well if you want to support that idea see [[WP:RFA]] for the next week. OK so this is a case of a fairly novel idea within current process.
-- geni
On 2/3/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
Is it just me, or would things go a lot better if experimentation was part of the policymaking process?
It was my impression that it already was!
This is what Proposed Deletions is doing and it seems like a far better idea than arguing ad infinitum about improving our deletion processes.
qv.
However I don't see the temporary undeletion thing as a policy matter, rather one of persuading administrators not to delete articles while their deletion is being challenged, in good faith, on DRV.
It's all about assuming good faith, of which alas there is not much in our deletion and undeletion processes.
On 2/3/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/3/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
Is it just me, or would things go a lot better if experimentation was part of the policymaking process?
It was my impression that it already was!
This is what Proposed Deletions is doing and it seems like a far better idea than arguing ad infinitum about improving our deletion processes.
qv.
However I don't see the temporary undeletion thing as a policy matter, rather one of persuading administrators not to delete articles while their deletion is being challenged, in good faith, on DRV.
It's all about assuming good faith, of which alas there is not much in our deletion and undeletion processes.
Assuming good faith does not mean assuming the user is doing the right thing.
-- geni
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 2/3/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
Is it just me, or would things go a lot better if experimentation was part of the policymaking process?
It was my impression that it already was!
This is what Proposed Deletions is doing and it seems like a far better idea than arguing ad infinitum about improving our deletion processes.
qv.
However I don't see the temporary undeletion thing as a policy matter, rather one of persuading administrators not to delete articles while their deletion is being challenged, in good faith, on DRV.
It's all about assuming good faith, of which alas there is not much in our deletion and undeletion processes.
Oh screw it. Let's make a new committee which will handle *all* deletion and undeletion requests, except speedies and copyvios. Let's call it, um, Uncyclopedia...
On 2/3/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
I've been pushing Tony to put forth a real replacement for DRV for a long time, and I'm glad he did. This is a solution I'd like to see implemented. I think admins can be trusted with this.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
The flaw is that with 800 admins to shop around with we risk haveing to repeat a heck of a lot of AFD votes. Neutraliseing missbehaveing admins is tricky.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 2/3/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
I've been pushing Tony to put forth a real replacement for DRV for a long time, and I'm glad he did. This is a solution I'd like to see implemented. I think admins can be trusted with this.
The flaw is that with 800 admins to shop around with we risk haveing to repeat a heck of a lot of AFD votes. Neutraliseing missbehaveing admins is tricky.
The trick to neutralisation is in determining whether they are acidic or basic. Of course "caustic" could forseeably cover both of those... :)
Is there anyway to organize the AfD list by subject matter or general topic? I think part of the problem with the listings are that they are huge, and people like me would rather spend time working on new articles, updating articles, etc. versus reading through a huge laundry list of articles up for deletion.
However, if the list were more organized, I think you would get a better representation in the vote and discussion as people would be better able to find the articles they had actual thoughts on.
Sue Anne sreed1234
Excellent suggestion. Even broad categories like popular culture, science etc would reduce the likelihood of Pokemon-lovers getting distracted and voting to delete an article on a physicist they'd never heard of.
Steve
On 1/30/06, Sue Reed sreed1234@yahoo.com wrote:
Is there anyway to organize the AfD list by subject matter or general topic? I think part of the problem with the listings are that they are huge, and people like me would rather spend time working on new articles, updating articles, etc. versus reading through a huge laundry list of articles up for deletion.
However, if the list were more organized, I think you would get a better representation in the vote and discussion as people would be better able to find the articles they had actual thoughts on.
Sue Anne sreed1234 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:06:45 +0100, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Excellent suggestion. Even broad categories like popular culture, science etc would reduce the likelihood of Pokemon-lovers getting distracted and voting to delete an article on a physicist they'd never heard of.
Steve
On 1/30/06, Sue Reed sreed1234@yahoo.com wrote:
Is there anyway to organize the AfD list by subject matter or general topic? I think part of the problem with the listings are that they are huge, and people like me would rather spend time working on new articles, updating articles, etc. versus reading through a huge laundry list of articles up for deletion.
However, if the list were more organized, I think you would get a better representation in the vote and discussion as people would be better able to find the articles they had actual thoughts on.
Well there is/was a "deletion sorting" project. Paralell to the "standard process". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting for a list of theyr subpages. Not sure how active or up to date they are at all times though, but it's a nice idea if somewhat labour intensive in it's current form.
On 1/30/06, Sue Reed sreed1234@yahoo.com wrote:
Is there anyway to organize the AfD list by subject matter or general topic? I think part of the problem with the listings are that they are huge, and people like me would rather spend time working on new articles, updating articles, etc. versus reading through a huge laundry list of articles up for deletion.
However, if the list were more organized, I think you would get a better representation in the vote and discussion as people would be better able to find the articles they had actual thoughts on.
Sue Anne sreed1234
you mean something like this:
On 1/30/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
No, the one he is talking about, who tried to use DRV to overrule a no-consensus AFD because it was more likely to get the result he wanted. This is a picture-perfect example of how process should NOT be (ab)used.
Currently it stands as follows:
A second AfD was started by me on "List of state-named avenues in Washington".
The first AfD had been closed with a no consensus keep, and the user was trying to get that overturned in DRV. I believed that it would be more appropriate to rerun the AfD and see what we got.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_state-n...
This was closed by someone who falsely claimed that my nomination was made "in bad faith" (apparently because I recommended a keep result, although as a historical matter this is quite common in such reruns).
There is another case currently going through where an undeleted article has been edited to add two paragraphs and an external reference. Someone involved in Deletion review then protected the article and slapped a template over the top, apparently in an attempt to stop the editor improving the article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Alexander_%28cartoonist%29
I have unprotected the article and removed the template.
I am used to this kind of illogic when dealing with those who frequent Deletion review, but I do recognise that this is very, very bizarre behavior. Attempts to prevent a second run of a deletion nomination because the first one is still being investigated, and attempts to prevent the improvement of an article because its earlier speedy deletion is under investigation. In both of these cases it seems to me that a process has been used to make it unreasonably difficult for potentially useful content to be retained and improved in the encyclopedia.
Maybe at [[WP:NOT]]. That page definitely needs a "Wikipedia is not a game of Nomic", if it doesn't already have one.
Steve
On 1/30/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
This user is "gaming the system". Isn't there some policy that explicitly forbids this?
Ryan
On 1/30/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/30/06, Habj sweetadelaide@gmail.com wrote:
I can not remember where, but somewhere at enwiki it says that
"concensus"
is in some cases defined as a supermajority number
This numerical intepretation was in the Consensus article for a while, but it was removed. Although one person favored it strongly and championed it for a long while, there was no consensus for it. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[[WP:NOT]] is the worst policy we have, it doesn't need to be expanded!
Why can't we express ourselves positively. The policy should be:
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia
As far as asking the question of What Wikipedia is Not:
well, Wikipedia is not anything you'd care to mention that isn't an encyclopaedia.
Just a bugbear of mine:) Take care
Jon (jguk)
Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote: Maybe at [[WP:NOT]]. That page definitely needs a "Wikipedia is not a game of Nomic", if it doesn't already have one.
Steve
On 1/30/06, Ryan Delaney wrote:
This user is "gaming the system". Isn't there some policy that explicitly forbids this?
Ryan
On 1/30/06, Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 1/30/06, Habj wrote:
I can not remember where, but somewhere at enwiki it says that
"concensus"
is in some cases defined as a supermajority number
This numerical intepretation was in the Consensus article for a while, but it was removed. Although one person favored it strongly and championed it for a long while, there was no consensus for it. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Photos NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo.
On 1/30/06, Jon thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
[[WP:NOT]] is the worst policy we have, it doesn't need to be expanded!
Why can't we express ourselves positively. The policy should be:
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia
You're obviously not aware of [[WP:ENC]]. *groan* But if you like, there's always [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia in eight words]].
well, Wikipedia is not anything you'd care to mention that isn't an encyclopaedia.
Well, Wikipedia is lots of things that no other encyclopaedia is (including user-editable, unreliable, inconsistent, multilingual, frequently up-to-the-minute etc etc).
To get really picky though, I thought the official line was that Wikipedia is a *project* to *build* an encyclopedia. Or maybe "Wikipedia" is the name of the encyclopaedia being built by "The Wikipedia Project". In that case, half of the entries at WP:NOT refer to the project (wikipedia is not therapy, a game, myspace, a chat site) and half refer to the actual encyclopaedia (not an indiscriminate collection of information, not a jargon file etc).
To answer your original point though, "why expand WP:NOT"? Basically because the nature of Wiki means that people can endlessly expand the project in new directions. Saying "WP is X and nothing but X" doesn't really pose any limits on this expansion. Saying "WP is X, but definitely not Y or Z" does.
Steve
It's best to define things in terms of what we are.
Not least as suggesting things that we're not just gives people ideas.
Let me give an example. You know what a blue door is. Well, don't think of a blue door. Think of anything other than a blue door, and wipe your mind of all thoughts about doors that are blue.
Now tell me what you're thinking of, and whether you'd have been thinking of it had I not mentioned blue doors.
Expressing things positively is important. It's very tempting to express things negatively, but that way tends often not to work well.
Incidentally, I had seen [[WP:ENC]]. The shame is that [[WP:ENC]] is not the policy, and [[WP:NOT]] is not the joke.
All the best Jon (jguk)
Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote: On 1/30/06, Jon wrote:
[[WP:NOT]] is the worst policy we have, it doesn't need to be expanded!
Why can't we express ourselves positively. The policy should be:
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia
You're obviously not aware of [[WP:ENC]]. *groan* But if you like, there's always [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia in eight words]].
well, Wikipedia is not anything you'd care to mention that isn't an encyclopaedia.
Well, Wikipedia is lots of things that no other encyclopaedia is (including user-editable, unreliable, inconsistent, multilingual, frequently up-to-the-minute etc etc).
To get really picky though, I thought the official line was that Wikipedia is a *project* to *build* an encyclopedia. Or maybe "Wikipedia" is the name of the encyclopaedia being built by "The Wikipedia Project". In that case, half of the entries at WP:NOT refer to the project (wikipedia is not therapy, a game, myspace, a chat site) and half refer to the actual encyclopaedia (not an indiscriminate collection of information, not a jargon file etc).
To answer your original point though, "why expand WP:NOT"? Basically because the nature of Wiki means that people can endlessly expand the project in new directions. Saying "WP is X and nothing but X" doesn't really pose any limits on this expansion. Saying "WP is X, but definitely not Y or Z" does.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. Enter now.
To get really picky though, I thought the official line was that Wikipedia is a *project* to *build* an encyclopedia. Or maybe "Wikipedia" is the name of the encyclopaedia being built by "The Wikipedia Project". In that case, half of the entries at WP:NOT refer to the project (wikipedia is not therapy, a game, myspace, a chat site) and half refer to the actual encyclopaedia (not an indiscriminate collection of information, not a jargon file etc).
To answer your original point though, "why expand WP:NOT"? Basically because the nature of Wiki means that people can endlessly expand the project in new directions. Saying "WP is X and nothing but X" doesn't really pose any limits on this expansion. Saying "WP is X, but definitely not Y or Z" does.
Steve
There's at least 2 sections in WP:NOT. One which explains what the project is not, one which explains what the articles are not. BTW, I do agree with that last paragraph. You can say Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia anyone can edit, but some people don't seem to grasp the idea of what an encyclopedia is, so while it's unfortunate we have to use negative language "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion" is something we need to have in there. Even if it's just so we can point people there. It's easier than explaining what type of content is encyclopedic and what isn't.
Mgm
Steve Bennett wrote:
Maybe at [[WP:NOT]]. That page definitely needs a "Wikipedia is not a game of Nomic", if it doesn't already have one.
Elian has some great old wikipedia quotes on her userpage in German:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Elian#Zitate_zu_Wikipedia
One of them is...
"The big secret of course is that Wikipedia is not really about an encyclopedia, it's just a big game of nomic. ;-) --JimboWales"
That was just a joke in irc, of course, some years ago.
Maybe at [[WP:NOT]]. That page definitely needs a "Wikipedia is not a game of Nomic", if it doesn't already have one.
Elian has some great old wikipedia quotes on her userpage in German:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Elian#Zitate_zu_Wikipedia
One of them is...
"The big secret of course is that Wikipedia is not really about an encyclopedia, it's just a big game of nomic. ;-) --JimboWales"
That was just a joke in irc, of course, some years ago.
I've always suspected Wikipedia wasn't actually an encyclopedia, but then again, I just read Asimov's "Foundation".
I think this loophole is a clear argument for WP:DRV to make decisions based only on process, not on content. If it's not consensus-based, we can't have the decision to delete be made there.
SCZenz
On 1/29/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
This is an interesting one. An article "List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C." was listed for deletion recently but kept because of no consensus. Someone thought "dang it, AfD is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote", and went to Wikipedia:Deletion review (DRV) to try to overturn the result for what he thought were weak arguments to keep.
Well that's all very well, but DRV (perhaps uniquely in all Wikipedia forums) does not operate by consensus but by majority vote. So it looks to me like we've got a possible loophole where someone dissatisfied with an AfD result can go and have the article deleted anyway on a straight majority vote. As it happens a lot of people who looked at the article in DRV thought it should be deleted (which isn't unusual--it's part of the culture in DRV)
So, I thought I'd give a second AfD a go. If the first AfD wasn't clear enough, let's try for a second. I accordingly relisted the article for deletion, explaining the circumstances and recommending keep.
Six people promptly said "keep".
Whereupon someone involved in the attempt to overturn the first deletion discussion and delete the article "unlisted* the article from AfD.
This is quite a quandary.
I've no doubt that this fellow is acting in good faith and genuinely believes that we cannot have a second AfD while the first is being reviewed, but I cannot see why not especially if (as seems here) it's clarifying that yes, Wikipedians really do want this article to be kept.
However he's not really granting good faith, is he? He's removed the second AfD listing. I restored once but I don't edit war so I'm not going to get into that stuff.
So I turn to you, dear readers.
How am I to ensure that, if this article is deleted, it is only deleted on the basis of consensus? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/31/06, SCZenz sczenz@gmail.com wrote:
I think this loophole is a clear argument for WP:DRV to make decisions based only on process, not on content. If it's not consensus-based, we can't have the decision to delete be made there.
Yes, perhaps the solution is for appeals on process to go to DRV, and appeals on content to be moved to AfD if the process appeal fails. The intervening time could be used as a reprieve period during which those who believe the content to be of potential value could work on it.