I agree that the deletionists are starting to act a little on the ridiculous side, and something needs to be done soon. Wikipedia needs an injection of common sense.
| Tyler | Zorin Deckiller | | Wikipedia Administrator | Former SWU member | | _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deckiller_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deckiller) | | _http://www.myspace.com/redsectora_ (http://www.myspace.com/redsectora) |
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
SonOfYoungwood@aol.com wrote:
I agree that the deletionists are starting to act a little on the ridiculous side, and something needs to be done soon. Wikipedia needs an injection of common sense.
Does anyone know what the status of article validation or version tagging or whatever the specific term is for that feature? I looked around but the latest edits to pages about this topic were from mid-2006 or so.
I've long felt that something like it could be the key to resolving (or at least drastically reducing) the inclusionism/deletionism dispute. If there were a way to tag articles as warranting inclusion in a Wikipedia 1.0 or not, I believe there wouldn't be such a strong drive to outright _delete_ stuff that some people believe is "unencyclopedic" or "non-notable". The articles about Pokemon or webcomics or whatever else is controversial on those grounds could be tagged appropriately, allowing distributors of Wikipedia forks and mirrors to choose their own threshold for notability with simple filters.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
SonOfYoungwood@aol.com wrote:
I agree that the deletionists are starting to act a little on the ridiculous side, and something needs to be done soon. Wikipedia needs an injection of common sense.
Does anyone know what the status of article validation or version tagging or whatever the specific term is for that feature? I looked around but the latest edits to pages about this topic were from mid-2006 or so.
At Wikimania they were planning to start it on de: and after a month of testing there a rudimentary form could be applied to en:. All it was going to do was to record whether an article had been checked for vandalism. That's not much, but it would have been a beginning.
I've long felt that something like it could be the key to resolving (or at least drastically reducing) the inclusionism/deletionism dispute. If there were a way to tag articles as warranting inclusion in a Wikipedia 1.0 or not, I believe there wouldn't be such a strong drive to outright _delete_ stuff that some people believe is "unencyclopedic" or "non-notable". The articles about Pokemon or webcomics or whatever else is controversial on those grounds could be tagged appropriately, allowing distributors of Wikipedia forks and mirrors to choose their own threshold for notability with simple filters.
It wouldn't solve everything, but any reduction in the time needed to argue about deletions would be a step in the right direction.
Ec
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:10:57 EST, SonOfYoungwood@aol.com wrote:
I agree that the deletionists are starting to act a little on the ridiculous side, and something needs to be done soon. Wikipedia needs an injection of common sense.
No, what it actually needs is for all vanity spammers and school kids to be blocked on sight. Sadly we don't have a good mechanism for that yet. But once the vanity spammers and kids go, the firehose of crap will slow to a trickle and we will be able to see the wood from the trees.
Right now we often get fifty REALLY REALLY LOUD fans of something called in from the web forum and zero reliable sources. What are we supposed to do?
Guy (JzG)