I just came across this AfD when a link to the deleted article was removed from another I had watchlisted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Jar
I never read the webcomic The Jar myself, but I know that it existed and was popular, and also that when Kittyhawk moved on to other projects the webcomic's archive was taken offline. The nominator saw the resulting lack of Google results and nominated it solely on account of "none notability." As a result of this grand consensus of four voters, three of whom explained their vote with "nn" and one with "as per nom", Wikipedia will forever more lack an article on this topic. Kind of a pity since I've always been curious about what I missed - I've been told that it had a better plot than Kittyhawk's current strip, which survived a VfD last year.
There were tons of great ideas being kicked around on this mailing list a few weeks back for how to change the deletion process, either as a short-term experiment or long-term reform, has it all quietly passed from everyone's radars now? Or is there some other forum the discussion moved to that I missed?
"As a result of this grand consensus of four voters, three of whom explained their vote with "nn" and one with "as per nom", Wikipedia will forever more lack an article on this topic."
Does AfD apply to the entire topic? According to some it only applies to a particular version of an article. (which version, I'm not sure)
Bryan,
If you had knowledge, that suggested it was worthy of retention, why didn't you contribute to the debate?
BTW, I think that AfD works well and generally the decision that is made at the end of the day is the correct one. I am disinclined to support an alternative unless I am sure that I will work better than the current system. So for, none of the suggested alternatives have met that standard in that view.
Any system regarding the deletion of articles will only work as well as the participation of members in it.
Regards
On 10/13/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I just came across this AfD when a link to the deleted article was removed from another I had watchlisted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Jar
I never read the webcomic The Jar myself, but I know that it existed and was popular, and also that when Kittyhawk moved on to other projects the webcomic's archive was taken offline. The nominator saw the resulting lack of Google results and nominated it solely on account of "none notability." As a result of this grand consensus of four voters, three of whom explained their vote with "nn" and one with "as per nom", Wikipedia will forever more lack an article on this topic. Kind of a pity since I've always been curious about what I missed - I've been told that it had a better plot than Kittyhawk's current strip, which survived a VfD last year.
There were tons of great ideas being kicked around on this mailing list a few weeks back for how to change the deletion process, either as a short-term experiment or long-term reform, has it all quietly passed from everyone's radars now? Or is there some other forum the discussion moved to that I missed? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Keith Old wrote:
Bryan,
If you had knowledge, that suggested it was worthy of retention, why didn't you contribute to the debate?
Because I only found out the article had existed _after_ the vote was closed and the article was deleted, when someone removed a link to the now-nonexistent article from an article I happen to have on my watchlist. I don't visit the AfD page.
Since the VfD was voted on and closed properly according to procedure VfU is unlikely to help. Recreations of deleted pages without a VfU are speediable, it's listed as general criteria #4. Any suggestions on how I might argue a case at this point? I know of no avenues of "appeal" to take to contest a deletion like this.
On 10/13/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Keith Old wrote: Since the VfD was voted on and closed properly according to procedure VfU is unlikely to help. Recreations of deleted pages without a VfU are speediable, it's listed as general criteria #4. Any suggestions on how I might argue a case at this point? I know of no avenues of "appeal" to take to contest a deletion like this.
Wait a few weeks then recreate being sure to establish notability.
-- geni
On 10/13/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Since the VfD was voted on and closed properly according to procedure VfU is unlikely to help.
In practice no, but VFU *should* undelete pages on the basis that Wikipedia is better with them than without. It's in the undeletion policy; the fact that there's a strong resistance to actually implementing the undeletion policy is saddening.
Recreations of deleted pages without a VfU are
speediable
Recreation of pages deleted *under the deletion policy* (which does actually apply here).
On 10/12/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/13/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Since the VfD was voted on and closed properly according to procedure VfU is unlikely to help.
In practice no, but VFU *should* undelete pages on the basis that Wikipedia is better with them than without. It's in the undeletion policy; the fact that there's a strong resistance to actually implementing the undeletion policy is saddening.
That's certainly the way it used to be, but this changed at some point: "This process should *not* be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — only if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer. This page is about *process*, not content." Not sure who added that, and whether or not there was a vote to completely change the undeletion process, but that's right at the top of the page now.
Recreations of deleted pages without a VfU are
speediable
Recreation of pages deleted *under the deletion policy* (which does actually apply here).
One reason not to improve an article while it's under a VfD debate, unless you are sure it's going to win. I've seen a number of times when articles were improved significantly after most people voted, they were deleted based on those old votes, and now that newly improved content was speediable.
On 10/13/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/12/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/13/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Since the VfD was voted on and closed properly according to procedure VfU is unlikely to help.
In practice no, but VFU *should* undelete pages on the basis that Wikipedia is better with them than without. It's in the undeletion policy; the fact that there's a strong resistance to actually implementing the undeletion policy is saddening.
That's certainly the way it used to be, but this changed at some point: "This process should *not* be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — only if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer. This page is about *process*, not content." Not sure who added that, and whether or not there was a vote to completely change the undeletion process, but that's right at the top of the page now.
Recreations of deleted pages without a VfU are
speediable
Recreation of pages deleted *under the deletion policy* (which does actually apply here).
One reason not to improve an article while it's under a VfD debate, unless you are sure it's going to win. I've seen a number of times when articles were improved significantly after most people voted, they were deleted based on those old votes, and now that newly improved content was speediable.
Isn't that an easy VFU candidate. "This article improved significantly during its time on AFD but ended up deleted based on old votes." Such requests are easily undeleted.
Try to get such articles undeleted first and see if VFU is really as ineffective as you think. BTW, were the improvements mentioned in the AFD discussion so the closing admin could take it into account?
--Mgm
--Mgm
Isn't that an easy VFU candidate. "This article improved significantly during its time on AFD but ended up deleted based on old votes." Such requests are easily undeleted.
Seems to me that would contradict the current rules of VFU, which are simply about review of procedural due process.
Try to get such articles undeleted first and see if VFU is really as ineffective as you think.
I have. What I got was banned from being allowed to edit VFU or any other page in the Wikipedia namespace.
BTW, were the improvements mentioned in the AFD discussion so the
closing admin could take it into account?
I'm talking about a hypothetical here, but it's something that happens quite often. Sometimes the improvements are mentioned, usually they aren't.
--Mgm
Anthony
When I improve articles on AfD, which is a regular occurrence, I leave notes on the discussion noting the changes and people regularly change their votes. If the vote us running heavily for deletion, I drop a note on the voters page letting them know that I have improved the article.
There hasn't been a case yet where the vote hasn't changed significantly. AfD voters are reasonable people and will reconsider their vote if presented with new information. You just have to tell them that the article has been improved..
If it were me seeking the undeletion, I would leave a polite message saying that you have significant additional information establishing the importance and verifiability of the webcomic in question. You might also wish to let others who have participated in this discussion
On 10/13/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/13/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/12/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/13/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Since the VfD was voted on and closed properly according to
procedure
VfU is unlikely to help.
In practice no, but VFU *should* undelete pages on the basis that Wikipedia is better with them than without. It's in the undeletion policy; the fact that there's a strong resistance to actually implementing the undeletion policy is saddening.
That's certainly the way it used to be, but this changed at some point: "This process should *not* be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — only if you think the debate was
interpreted
incorrectly by the closer. This page is about *process*, not content."
Not
sure who added that, and whether or not there was a vote to completely change the undeletion process, but that's right at the top of the page
now.
Recreations of deleted pages without a VfU are
speediable
Recreation of pages deleted *under the deletion policy* (which does actually apply here).
One reason not to improve an article while it's under a VfD debate,
unless
you are sure it's going to win. I've seen a number of times when
articles
were improved significantly after most people voted, they were deleted
based
on those old votes, and now that newly improved content was speediable.
Isn't that an easy VFU candidate. "This article improved significantly during its time on AFD but ended up deleted based on old votes." Such requests are easily undeleted.
Try to get such articles undeleted first and see if VFU is really as ineffective as you think. BTW, were the improvements mentioned in the AFD discussion so the closing admin could take it into account?
--Mgm
--Mgm
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Which article are we actually talking about? If there's new additional evidence in the form of the Wayback machine links it explains why a regular Google didn't work which would make it quite likely for the original decision to be overturned. Especially when the creator has another comic included.
--Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Which article are we actually talking about? If there's new additional evidence in the form of the Wayback machine links it explains why a regular Google didn't work which would make it quite likely for the original decision to be overturned. Especially when the creator has another comic included.
The webcomic "The Jar": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Jar
The archives used to be located here: http://www.montroseacademy.com/jar/ and some of it can be seen via Wayback Machine at http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.montroseacademy.com/jar/ . Kittyhawk's subsequent webcomic has an article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparkling_Generation_Valkyrie_Yuuki with the old VfD discussion for it pasted on its talk page.
I'd try a VfU, but the policy right on the VfU page is quite confusing on this point. It says:
Deletion Review is also to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion /and/ the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article. This process should /not/ be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — only if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer. This page is about /process/, not content.
I've got new information and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article, but I don't agree with the deletion debate's reasoning and I think the debate was interpreted correctly by the closer (the result was clearly "delete", I don't fault whoever pressed the button). I'd like to see the policy situation clarified rather than just making an exception in this one case since it's not like this one case is particularly important on its own.
I'd try a VfU, but the policy right on the VfU page is quite confusing on this point.
Here's where the policy change was made, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion/Vfu..., on 20 September 2005. The edit summary was "Consensus has been reached, being bold." I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.
Clearly there wasn't a consensus for this policy change, and I don't see a problem with being bold and reverting the change.
Anthony
On 10/13/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/13/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/12/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/13/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Since the VfD was voted on and closed properly according to procedure VfU is unlikely to help.
In practice no, but VFU *should* undelete pages on the basis that Wikipedia is better with them than without. It's in the undeletion policy; the fact that there's a strong resistance to actually implementing the undeletion policy is saddening.
That's certainly the way it used to be, but this changed at some point: "This process should *not* be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — only if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer. This page is about *process*, not content." Not sure who added that, and whether or not there was a vote to completely change the undeletion process, but that's right at the top of the page now.
Recreations of deleted pages without a VfU are
speediable
Recreation of pages deleted *under the deletion policy* (which does actually apply here).
One reason not to improve an article while it's under a VfD debate, unless you are sure it's going to win. I've seen a number of times when articles were improved significantly after most people voted, they were deleted based on those old votes, and now that newly improved content was speediable.
Isn't that an easy VFU candidate. "This article improved significantly during its time on AFD but ended up deleted based on old votes." Such requests are easily undeleted.
Try to get such articles undeleted first and see if VFU is really as ineffective as you think.
I've monitored VFU for a while, and participated occasionally, but mostly, it's become a self validation tool where AfD delete voters gather and pat each other on the back for doing the "right thing" where no consideration of anything other than the AfD process itself is permitted. If you didn't see the AfD nomination in the first place, well, that's just too bad, they say. It no longer matters whether the content is useful or valuable anymore, it's all about "enforcing" the "consensus" of the few regulars at AfD. Anyone who's looked at it with a critical eye knows this already. If AfD needs a "dynamite enema", VFU may be the proper insertion point.
Even simply asking for the content of a deleted article gets you suspicious eye from some with "petty AfD enforcement" attitudes.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Keith Old wrote:
Bryan,
If you had knowledge, that suggested it was worthy of retention, why didn't you contribute to the debate?
Because I only found out the article had existed _after_ the vote was closed and the article was deleted, when someone removed a link to the now-nonexistent article from an article I happen to have on my watchlist. I don't visit the AfD page.
Since the VfD was voted on and closed properly according to procedure VfU is unlikely to help. Recreations of deleted pages without a VfU are speediable, it's listed as general criteria #4. Any suggestions on how I might argue a case at this point? I know of no avenues of "appeal" to take to contest a deletion like this.
You can always write an article from scratch. If the assholes speedy it you'll have others on your side to restore it.
On 10/12/05, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
You can always write an article from scratch. If the assholes speedy it you'll have others on your side to restore it.
No, you can't. If you recreate an article on the same topic as a previously deleted one, it will be speedied, and VFU won't likely accept that it was "rewritten" as an excuse.
Kelly
This doesn't make any sense. We need to change the policy if that is how it works.
Fred
On Oct 12, 2005, at 8:07 PM, Kelly Martin wrote:
On 10/12/05, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
You can always write an article from scratch. If the assholes speedy it you'll have others on your side to restore it.
No, you can't. If you recreate an article on the same topic as a previously deleted one, it will be speedied, and VFU won't likely accept that it was "rewritten" as an excuse.
Kelly _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Our Criteria for Speedy Deletion guidelines state that one of the reasons for speedy deletion is that the article in question is
1. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. Note that: 2. Administrators faced with a recreation of previously speedily deleted content must determine that it did in fact meet a criterion for speedy deletion and had been appropriately deleted before they delete it again; and,
- This does not apply to content in userspace or to content undeleted according to the undeletion policyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy.
In other words, an article rewritten to establish notability under the criteria for Web Comics shouldn't be speedy deleted.
On 10/13/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
This doesn't make any sense. We need to change the policy if that is how it works.
Fred
On Oct 12, 2005, at 8:07 PM, Kelly Martin wrote:
On 10/12/05, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
You can always write an article from scratch. If the assholes speedy it you'll have others on your side to restore it.
No, you can't. If you recreate an article on the same topic as a previously deleted one, it will be speedied, and VFU won't likely accept that it was "rewritten" as an excuse.
Kelly _______________________________________________ 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
On 10/12/05, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
In other words, an article rewritten to establish notability under the criteria for Web Comics shouldn't be speedy deleted.
Sure, it shouldn't. Wanna bet it won't be?
Kelly
On 10/12/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/12/05, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
In other words, an article rewritten to establish notability under the criteria for Web Comics shouldn't be speedy deleted.
Sure, it shouldn't. Wanna bet it won't be?
As an arbitrator you'll make sure that such a blatant disregard of Wikipedia policy doesn't stick, right? If not, thank God you're only there until the end of the year.
Kelly
Anthony
On 10/13/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
As an arbitrator you'll make sure that such a blatant disregard of Wikipedia policy doesn't stick, right? If not, thank God you're only there until the end of the year.
It's not my job to seek out and destroy any who violates written policy. If, in fact, the written policy is not being followed because the consensus of the community is to ignore the written policy, then the written policy isn't actually policy, now, is it?
I'm certainly not going to try to impose, as an Arbitrator, my opinion as to what deletion policy should be. That would be a gross abuse of power.
Kelly
On 10/13/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/13/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
As an arbitrator you'll make sure that such a blatant disregard of
Wikipedia
policy doesn't stick, right? If not, thank God you're only there until
the
end of the year.
It's not my job to seek out and destroy any who violates written policy. If, in fact, the written policy is not being followed because the consensus of the community is to ignore the written policy, then the written policy isn't actually policy, now, is it?
So, in other words, you'll selectively enforce whatever policies you feel like enforcing? If not, then what exactly *is* your job?
There obviously isn't a consensus in the community to ignore the written policy in this case, so that's irrelevant.
I'm certainly not going to try to impose, as an Arbitrator, my opinion
as to what deletion policy should be. That would be a gross abuse of power.
Well that's a good start, and it's really all that's necessary. You don't have to force the recreation by ruling, you just have to not sanction someone else who does.
Kelly
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 10/13/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/13/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
As an arbitrator you'll make sure that such a blatant disregard of Wikipedia
policy doesn't stick, right? If not, thank God you're only there until the
end of the year.
It's not my job to seek out and destroy any who violates written policy. If, in fact, the written policy is not being followed because the consensus of the community is to ignore the written policy, then the written policy isn't actually policy, now, is it?
So, in other words, you'll selectively enforce whatever policies you feel like enforcing? If not, then what exactly *is* your job?
There obviously isn't a consensus in the community to ignore the written policy in this case, so that's irrelevant.
I don't see it as that simple. There is the question of when does something change from a proposal to a policy. It is far too easy for incremental changes to policy to go unnoticed until they have become contrary to original intention. They only become noticed when someone tries to enforce them.
I'm certainly not going to try to impose, as an Arbitrator, my opinion
as to what deletion policy should be. That would be a gross abuse of power.
Well that's a good start, and it's really all that's necessary. You don't have to force the recreation by ruling, you just have to not sanction someone else who does.
It would indeed be wrong for him to impose what he thinks policy should be, but he still has to determine what policy is. That can be a matter of interpretation. He can also look into whether the policy adoption policy was followed to determine whether the policy is valid.
Ec
G'day Anthony,
On 10/12/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/12/05, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
In other words, an article rewritten to establish notability under the criteria for Web Comics shouldn't be speedy deleted.
Sure, it shouldn't. Wanna bet it won't be?
As an arbitrator you'll make sure that such a blatant disregard of Wikipedia policy doesn't stick, right? If not, thank God you're only there until the end of the year.
Arbitrators are not Inquisitors. It's not their job to track down and punish violations; they sit back and wait for the arguments to come to them.
Cheers,
Kelly wrote:
No, you can't. If you recreate an article on the same topic as a previously deleted one, it will be speedied, and VFU won't likely accept that it was "rewritten" as an excuse.
Fred Bauder wrote:
This doesn't make any sense. We need to change the policy if that is how it works.
Yes, Fred is right.
It is difficult to strike a balance here, though. It's one thing if Bryan Derkson (*Bryan Derkson*, this isn't some random person, it's *Bryan Derkson* you see) wants to recreate an article and puts forward good arguments for it, and another thing if some POV-warring troll or garage band tries to keep bringing back some nonsense that got properly deleted already.
We should listen to Bryan, we should not listen to trolls. The hard bit is implementing common sense and logic in policy. :-)
--Jimbo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Kelly wrote:
No, you can't. If you recreate an article on the same topic as a previously deleted one, it will be speedied, and VFU won't likely accept that it was "rewritten" as an excuse.
Fred Bauder wrote:
This doesn't make any sense. We need to change the policy if that is how it works.
Yes, Fred is right.
It is difficult to strike a balance here, though. It's one thing if Bryan Derkson (*Bryan Derkson*, this isn't some random person, it's *Bryan Derkson* you see) wants to recreate an article and puts forward good arguments for it, and another thing if some POV-warring troll or garage band tries to keep bringing back some nonsense that got properly deleted already.
As one of the (the?) most active contributors to en.wp, do we have an article on Bryan? No? Why not? We have 2 magazine references!
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
Alphax wrote:
As one of the (the?) most active contributors to en.wp, do we have an article on Bryan? No? Why not? We have 2 magazine references!
Aw, shucks. I don't like to make a fuss, I just edit. On the other hand, Jimbo's post seriously inflated my head, there. Thanks. :)
Relating back to the original purpose of this thread, though, I wouldn't want to dismiss the issue I had with this deletion by "being Bryan" and throwing my reputation around to resolve it. It just seemed like a particularly good example of a problem I felt existed with the current deletion-related policies, that there's no easy way to revisit a deletion that's been closed like this and to challenge votes made without any significant justification provided.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Alphax wrote:
As one of the (the?) most active contributors to en.wp, do we have an article on Bryan? No? Why not? We have 2 magazine references!
Aw, shucks. I don't like to make a fuss, I just edit. On the other hand, Jimbo's post seriously inflated my head, there. Thanks. :)
Relating back to the original purpose of this thread, though, I wouldn't want to dismiss the issue I had with this deletion by "being Bryan" and throwing my reputation around to resolve it.
It could be worse - you could be Brion or Tim and have the power to keep/delete on the database level ;)
It just seemed like a particularly good example of a problem I felt existed with the current deletion-related policies, that there's no easy way to revisit a deletion that's been closed like this and to challenge votes made without any significant justification provided.
We should make "voting keep or delete on AfD without explaining the vote" a blockable offence?
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
Alphax wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
It just seemed like a particularly good example of a problem I felt existed with the current deletion-related policies, that there's no easy way to revisit a deletion that's been closed like this and to challenge votes made without any significant justification provided.
We should make "voting keep or delete on AfD without explaining the vote" a blockable offence?
He He He! A bit of their own medicine. There could be a whole new level of argumentation.
I would be happy with the simpler solution that any AfD without explanation could itself be speedied on sight.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I would be happy with the simpler solution that any AfD without explanation could itself be speedied on sight.
I suspect an unexplained AfD nomination isn't a big deal by itself, since practically every nomination gets a few votes and those votes will probably be what decides it. I'm more concerned with the votes themselves; a string of "delete, nn" or "keep, notable" can swing the outcome of a vote but provides no actual basis for it ("me too" votes provide a basis by proxy, but don't themselves add anything new to the discussion). Deleting individual votes is likely to be pretty contentious but maybe if there was an obvious policy against considering them when closing the AfD there might be fewer such votes cast in the first place.
I notice that [[Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Commenting_on_a_listing_for_deletion]] already sort of implies this, but perhaps it needs to be made more explicit.
On 10/16/05 1:10 PM, "Bryan Derksen" bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I'm more concerned with the votes themselves; a string of "delete, nn" or "keep, notable" can swing the outcome of a vote but provides no actual basis for it ("me too" votes provide a basis by proxy, but don't themselves add anything new to the discussion).
Why should there be a requirement that someone has to waste time by repeating the explanations given by other people for deleting an article?
If an article is non-notable, it's non-notable. There is no requirement that anyone who votes has to write explanations for anything. When you have 150 AFD noms per day, it is absurd to suggest that there is some sort of obligation to explain votes, especially when so many nominations are uncontested junk.
-FCYTravis @ en.wikipedia
On 10/16/05, Travis Mason-Bushman travis@gpsports-eng.com wrote:
On 10/16/05 1:10 PM, "Bryan Derksen" bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I'm more concerned with the votes themselves; a string of "delete, nn" or "keep, notable" can swing the outcome of a vote but provides no actual basis for it ("me too" votes provide a basis by proxy, but don't themselves add anything new to the discussion).
Why should there be a requirement that someone has to waste time by repeating the explanations given by other people for deleting an article?
I think the issue is when *no one* gives an explanation for the deletion.
If an article is non-notable, it's non-notable. There is no requirement that
anyone who votes has to write explanations for anything. When you have 150 AFD noms per day, it is absurd to suggest that there is some sort of obligation to explain votes, especially when so many nominations are uncontested junk.
If I recall correctly, there used to be a requirement to explain all votes, and admins were supposed to weight unexplained votes accordingly. And if you don't have the time to explain your reasoning 150 times, then you shouldn't be voting on 150 nominations. If you don't have the time to explain your reasoning, then you didn't have the time to read the article and do a bit of basic research into the topic you're voting on. Please, if you're going to be uninformed, don't bother voting.
-FCYTravis @ en.wikipedia
On 10/16/05, Travis Mason-Bushman travis@gpsports-eng.com wrote:
When you have 150 AFD noms per day, it is absurd to suggest that there is some sort of obligation to explain votes, especially when so many nominations are uncontested junk.
"Uncontested" != "junk"
We just had an uncontested deletion of an article, and VFU was about to treat the application for undeletion with its usual feckless "the process was followed so keep deleted" idiocy.
Yes, people who think that an article *must* be deleted *should* be required to explain why.
Every single time.
Why is this a problem?
If this professor Wolters really had been such an inconsequential fellow, the article should have been redirect to the article about his college. If he was more important but still not for an article of his own then the article could have been merged.
Why are we going around deleting articles like this? Why are people seriously suggesting that we're doing it in such numbers that nobody need even give a reason any more? That's utterly bonkers.
Why would it be a redirect to his college especially as that article may contain nothing relevant to his work and as academics often leave their university to work elsewhere. If it had been merged, where is the appropriate place to merge it?
AfD is a human institution and as such is not perfect. The way that it will work best is with the active participation of Wikipedians.
On 10/17/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/16/05, Travis Mason-Bushman travis@gpsports-eng.com wrote:
When you have 150 AFD noms per day, it is absurd to suggest that there is some sort of obligation to explain votes, especially when so many nominations are uncontested junk.
"Uncontested" != "junk"
We just had an uncontested deletion of an article, and VFU was about to treat the application for undeletion with its usual feckless "the process was followed so keep deleted" idiocy.
Yes, people who think that an article *must* be deleted *should* be required to explain why.
Every single time.
Why is this a problem?
If this professor Wolters really had been such an inconsequential fellow, the article should have been redirect to the article about his college. If he was more important but still not for an article of his own then the article could have been merged.
Why are we going around deleting articles like this? Why are people seriously suggesting that we're doing it in such numbers that nobody need even give a reason any more? That's utterly bonkers. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/17/05, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
Why would it be a redirect to his college especially as that article may contain nothing relevant to his work and as academics often leave their university to work elsewhere. If it had been merged, where is the appropriate place to merge it?
That's an editorial decision.
On 10/17/05, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
Why would it be a redirect to his college especially as that article may contain nothing relevant to his work and as academics often leave their university to work elsewhere. If it had been merged, where is the appropriate place to merge it?
I agree here. People shouldn't be redirected to places - that's just confusing. And redirects shouldn't be made except to articles which mention the other subject anyway. I don't see what the big deal is with keeping an article on an inconsequential college professor. The mere fact that the guy is inconsequential is probably useful information to anyone typing that person's name into the search field. Anthony
On 10/17/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/16/05, Travis Mason-Bushman travis@gpsports-eng.com wrote:
When you have 150 AFD noms per day, it is absurd to suggest that there is some sort of obligation to explain votes, especially when so many nominations are uncontested junk.
"Uncontested" != "junk"
However it does mean that for five days no one who visted the article thought it was worth keeping
We just had an uncontested deletion of an article, and VFU was about to treat the application for undeletion with its usual feckless "the process was followed so keep deleted" idiocy.
Yes, people who think that an article *must* be deleted *should* be required to explain why.
Every single time.
You don't think the template namespace is has enough rubish in it already?
Why is this a problem?
If this professor Wolters really had been such an inconsequential fellow, the article should have been redirect to the article about his college. If he was more important but still not for an article of his own then the article could have been merged.
People move around
Why are we going around deleting articles like this?
Becuase aprently no one cares about them.
Why are people seriously suggesting that we're doing it in such numbers that nobody need even give a reason any more? That's utterly bonkers.
Time use of course it would be fairly trival to create with {{agree}} (argee with nominator) so if comments were really required it wouldn't do any good.
-- geni
On 10/17/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/17/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
"Uncontested" != "junk"
However it does mean that for five days no one who visted the article thought it was worth keeping
Why are we going around deleting articles like this?
Becuase aprently no one cares about them.
No one who "visted the article" in 5 days is not equivalent to "no one", even "aprently". Even then, there are usually people who "vist" articles who don't know how to vote, don't care to vote, or aren't allowed to vote.
Why are people
seriously suggesting that we're doing it in such numbers that nobody need even give a reason any more? That's utterly bonkers.
Time use of course it would be fairly trival to create with {{agree}} (argee with nominator) so if comments were really required it wouldn't do any good.
That would imply that the nominator actually gave a reason, though. If that's true, and the person making the comment actually does his/her own check to see if the nominator was correct, then yeah, I guess that fact is useful. But if all the nominator has come up with is the circular argument that the article should be deleted because it isn't notable, then saying that you agree with such a vacuous statement is meaningless.
--
geni
Anthony
On 10/17/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/17/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Why are people seriously suggesting that we're doing it in such numbers that nobody need even give a reason any more? That's utterly bonkers.
Time use of course it would be fairly trival to create with {{agree}} (argee with nominator) so if comments were really required it wouldn't do any good.
The nominator in this case gave no reason except that he found this fellow boring and believed him to be non-notable. The former was very believable but obviously isn't a serious criterion for deletion. The latter would surely require some kind of rationale.
Here we have a professor who has worked in Canada and Netherlands (not one of these merkin professors who are apparently not so senior) and a published author. We have a deletion precedent that (non-vanity) published authors are notable, and another that professors who have published books rather than just papers are notable, so the non-notability claim was, to put it mildly, somewhat implausible.
geni wrote:
On 10/17/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/16/05, Travis Mason-Bushman travis@gpsports-eng.com wrote:
When you have 150 AFD noms per day, it is absurd to suggest that there is some sort of obligation to explain votes, especially when so many nominations are uncontested junk.
"Uncontested" != "junk"
However it does mean that for five days no one who visted the article thought it was worth keeping
At the time of this writing en has 776,230 articles. By definition, the articles we're talking about are generally not "popular" - there are only a few people interested in them one way or another. It's very easy to overlook an AfD in all that for a five-day period, I managed to miss the entire existence of the "The Jar" article from its creation through to its deletion over a much longer period than that.
You don't think the template namespace is has enough rubish in it already?
Bit of a topic shift there. The template namespace is very different from the article namespace and is not addressed by AfD. There's TfD for that, with its own separate set of criteria for template deletion.
If this professor Wolters really had been such an inconsequential fellow, the article should have been redirect to the article about his college. If he was more important but still not for an article of his own then the article could have been merged.
People move around
Redirects can be changed. This is kind of a side-issue, though, specific to this one particular article.
Why are we going around deleting articles like this?
Becuase aprently no one cares about them.
But you're only basing that on the results of an AfD, and a major point of this discussion is that some of us are arguing that some AfDs are not receiving the sort of attention that they should be.
Here's another idea that just occurred to me to toss into the pot, how about leaving AfDs open for a much longer period of time, like a month or so? Before reacting that this would make AfD's backlog enormous, bear in mind that it wouldn't affect the rate at which articles enter AfD and are deleted from AfD, and thanks to each day having its own page it'd be just as easy to handle the housekeeping. There'd just be 30 day-pages in the queue in front of /old rather than 5. This doesn't address the issue of unsupported votes, but it would be a step towards getting more votes from people who read the articles as opposed to those who specialize in reading the AfD listings.
Why are people seriously suggesting that we're doing it in such numbers that nobody need even give a reason any more? That's utterly bonkers.
Time use of course it would be fairly trival to create with {{agree}} (argee with nominator) so if comments were really required it wouldn't do any good.
I really don't see any difference between a vote that's explained with a useless "nn" and a vote that's explained with {{nn}} which expands into a paragraph-long genereric dissertation on the subject of notability. Typing those curley brackets doesn't require any extra thought and provides no extra information.
On 10/17/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
At the time of this writing en has 776,230 articles. By definition, the articles we're talking about are generally not "popular" - there are only a few people interested in them one way or another. It's very easy to overlook an AfD in all that for a five-day period, I managed to miss the entire existence of the "The Jar" article from its creation through to its deletion over a much longer period than that.
You relise the logical end point of that is that wikipedia has grown beyond our ability to manage it and needs drasticaly downsizeing? Even the most extream deletionists would probably feel that that was going a little far.
Bit of a topic shift there. The template namespace is very different from the article namespace and is not addressed by AfD. There's TfD for that, with its own separate set of criteria for template deletion.
I was refuring too the human habit of minimising expenditure of energy. Under the suggested changes we would end up with an impressive number of templates for voteing on AFD
Redirects can be changed. This is kind of a side-issue, though, specific to this one particular article.
No you have already admited that not many people would care. What makes you think the redirects would be changed?
But you're only basing that on the results of an AfD, and a major point of this discussion is that some of us are arguing that some AfDs are not receiving the sort of attention that they should be.
Here's another idea that just occurred to me to toss into the pot, how about leaving AfDs open for a much longer period of time, like a month or so? Before reacting that this would make AfD's backlog enormous, bear in mind that it wouldn't affect the rate at which articles enter AfD and are deleted from AfD, and thanks to each day having its own page it'd be just as easy to handle the housekeeping. There'd just be 30 day-pages in the queue in front of /old rather than 5. This doesn't address the issue of unsupported votes, but it would be a step towards getting more votes from people who read the articles as opposed to those who specialize in reading the AfD listings.
ADF/[[wikipeida:wikiproject decency]] going on for thirty days? You do know that dissrupting wikipedia is a blokerble offence.
I really don't see any difference between a vote that's explained with a useless "nn" and a vote that's explained with {{nn}} which expands into a paragraph-long genereric dissertation on the subject of notability. Typing those curley brackets doesn't require any extra thought and provides no extra information.
I don't regard nn as useless so I have no problem with them amounting to the same thing.
-- geni
I really don't see any difference between a vote that's explained with a useless "nn" and a vote that's explained with {{nn}} which expands into a paragraph-long genereric dissertation on the subject of notability. Typing those curley brackets doesn't require any extra thought and provides no extra information.
I don't regard nn as useless so I have no problem with them amounting to the same thing.
-- geni
Whether a particular article topic is notable or not depends on the topic itself can't be explained in a single template. If you're going to say an article is nn, at least the nominator (or if they don't the first person to agree with them) will need to explain why the topic is not notable. Just saying "Delete, nn" or "Delete" agree with nominator" when the nominator themself wasn't clear isn't informative.
As the professor article shows: 1) Nominator said subject was boring (not a proper criterion) and non-notable (without explaining why). 2) The other unanimous delete voters either agreed with the nominator, call it vanity or didn't comment at all. 3) The subject was a professor with published books on his name which precedent says are keepable.
People can be away and not visit AFD for a period of time while still caring for the article, but simply not being aware of its existence. That doesn't mean no one cares about it. And while unanimous and in process, it's still a wrong decision to delete something as being vanity or non-notable when precedent clearly shows it's untrue. Had I known about the article when it was originally up for deletion, I would've voted keep with a detailed explanation based on policy (with links).
Also, I'd like to reiterate a point made above: if you don't have the time to explain your vote, don't vote. AFD is a discussion page with the aim to get concensus and not a majority vote. When you vote, you should make an informed decision about the article based on its content and show it to the closing admin by explaining your vote. Admins are not clairvoyant and one could easily be vote stuffing, if you don't explain the admin can't see the difference.
--Mgm
geni wrote:
On 10/17/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
At the time of this writing en has 776,230 articles. By definition, the articles we're talking about are generally not "popular" - there are only a few people interested in them one way or another. It's very easy to overlook an AfD in all that for a five-day period, I managed to miss the entire existence of the "The Jar" article from its creation through to its deletion over a much longer period than that.
You relise the logical end point of that is that wikipedia has grown beyond our ability to manage it and needs drasticaly downsizeing? Even the most extream deletionists would probably feel that that was going a little far.
You've interpreted my position to be exactly the opposite of what I was aiming for. I'm not saying "Wikipedia is big, so we should be shrinking it to make it easier to manage with our current methods". I'm saying "Wikipedia is big, so we should be changing our methods of managing it to cope with that."
Bit of a topic shift there. The template namespace is very different from the article namespace and is not addressed by AfD. There's TfD for that, with its own separate set of criteria for template deletion.
I was refuring too the human habit of minimising expenditure of energy. Under the suggested changes we would end up with an impressive number of templates for voteing on AFD
Oh, I see, this is in reference to your idea to explain votes using templates such as {{nn}} instead of just typing "nn". Well, I didn't propose that and in fact I think it would be a bad idea. So I guess we're in agreement here, for different reasons.
Redirects can be changed. This is kind of a side-issue, though, specific to this one particular article.
No you have already admited that not many people would care. What makes you think the redirects would be changed?
I'm not sure what the problem here is, though. This is Wikipedia, the whole point is that the readers are also editors and so when they spot a problem they can fix it. If I follow a redirect and it takes me to the wrong place, I go back and change it. If nobody ever follows the redirect it won't get changed but it also won't _matter._
I edit plenty of articles about whose subjects I care nothing, BTW. The random article link is my browser's home URL and I click it whenever I'm bored with whatever else I was doing. Eventually someone else like me would stumble across trouble spots even if nobody really cared about them.
ADF/[[wikipeida:wikiproject decency]] going on for thirty days? You do know that dissrupting wikipedia is a blokerble offence.
I figured I was going to be accused of violating WP:POINT at some point in the course of this discussion. I was expecting that I'd have to actually make a related edit on Wikipedia itself before it happened, though, rather than just proposing an idea for a policy change.
I don't regard nn as useless so I have no problem with them amounting to the same thing.
Voting just "nn" gives no reasoning _why_ the voter thought the article was nn. The point of AfD is supposed to be to have a discussion and reach a consensus, not just tally up votes and go with whichever side achieves the magic numeric threshold. If an article were to go up for deletion and fifty people voted "keep, notable!" but one person voted "delete, this is a hoax. See these websites [1][2][3], it was dreamed up by a radio shock jock in 2003 at WKRAP in New Serepta as part of a contest he was running." I would certainly hope that that one well-support delete vote would blow all fifty of those unsupported keeps out of the water.
On 10/18/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Voting just "nn" gives no reasoning _why_ the voter thought the article was nn. The point of AfD is supposed to be to have a discussion and reach a consensus, not just tally up votes and go with whichever side achieves the magic numeric threshold. If an article were to go up for deletion and fifty people voted "keep, notable!" but one person voted "delete, this is a hoax. See these websites [1][2][3], it was dreamed up by a radio shock jock in 2003 at WKRAP in New Serepta as part of a contest he was running." I would certainly hope that that one well-support delete vote would blow all fifty of those unsupported keeps out of the water.
I'd certainly hope so.
On 10/18/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/18/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Voting just "nn" gives no reasoning _why_ the voter thought the article was nn. The point of AfD is supposed to be to have a discussion and reach a consensus, not just tally up votes and go with whichever side achieves the magic numeric threshold. If an article were to go up for deletion and fifty people voted "keep, notable!" but one person voted "delete, this is a hoax. See these websites [1][2][3], it was dreamed up by a radio shock jock in 2003 at WKRAP in New Serepta as part of a contest he was running." I would certainly hope that that one well-support delete vote would blow all fifty of those unsupported keeps out of the water.
I'd certainly hope so.
I'd hope the article were kept, and changed to explain the hoax, since obviously it's a notable hoax.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I'd hope the article were kept, and changed to explain the hoax, since obviously it's a notable hoax.
Yeah, I tried to throw that into the hypothetical example but it was getting rather large and complicated. I hoped nobody would call me on it. :) The basic point remains, though - the vote with backing evidence and detailed arguments should trump any number of ones without those.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I'd hope the article were kept, and changed to explain the hoax, since obviously it's a notable hoax.
Yeah, I tried to throw that into the hypothetical example but it was getting rather large and complicated. I hoped nobody would call me on it. :) The basic point remains, though - the vote with backing evidence and detailed arguments should trump any number of ones without those.
Good heavens no! That will upset people! You'll never be an administrator with such blatant direspect for consensus!
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 10/18/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I'd hope the article were kept, and changed to explain the hoax, since obviously it's a notable hoax.
Yeah, I tried to throw that into the hypothetical example but it was getting rather large and complicated. I hoped nobody would call me on it. :) The basic point remains, though - the vote with backing evidence and detailed arguments should trump any number of ones without those.
Good heavens no! That will upset people! You'll never be an administrator with such blatant direspect for consensus!
Alphax | /"\
So you mean to say that if there's a "consensus" of a number of trusted users who vote to delete ("Delete, actor vanity") for example a Oscar nominated actor (they just don't know it), you're going with the majority and delete it even when there's one person saying "Keep, it's an Oscar nominated actor"? That's insane! Common sense should never be overthrown by blanket unreasoned votes. AFD is about the discussion.
--Mgm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 10/18/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I'd hope the article were kept, and changed to explain the hoax, since obviously it's a notable hoax.
Yeah, I tried to throw that into the hypothetical example but it was getting rather large and complicated. I hoped nobody would call me on it. :) The basic point remains, though - the vote with backing evidence and detailed arguments should trump any number of ones without those.
Good heavens no! That will upset people! You'll never be an administrator with such blatant direspect for consensus!
So you mean to say that if there's a "consensus" of a number of trusted users who vote to delete ("Delete, actor vanity") for example a Oscar nominated actor (they just don't know it), you're going with the majority and delete it even when there's one person saying "Keep, it's an Oscar nominated actor"? That's insane! Common sense should never be overthrown by blanket unreasoned votes. AFD is about the discussion.
You're right, it IS insane. But according to community consensus, due process is all that matters. Content be damned, we're here to run an internet democracy, not write an encyclopedia!
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
You're right, it IS insane. But according to community consensus, due process is all that matters. Content be damned, we're here to run an internet democracy, not write an encyclopedia!
Alphax | /"\
I'm not sure you're being sarcastic here, or whether you really mean it... Anyway, Wikipedia is NOT a democracy.
--Mgm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
You're right, it IS insane. But according to community consensus, due process is all that matters. Content be damned, we're here to run an internet democracy, not write an encyclopedia!
I'm not sure you're being sarcastic here, or whether you really mean it... Anyway, Wikipedia is NOT a democracy.
Shh! You're not supposed to tell them that! :)
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 10/19/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure you're being sarcastic here, or whether you really mean it... Anyway, Wikipedia is NOT a democracy.
--Mgm
For the most part wikipedia is functionaly a democracy that uses super majorities. There isn't really any other way to run things since any project that includes (to pick a random example) me and tony sideway is going to have dificulty reaching a consensus on anything (ok I think we are on the same side as to letting people without accounts edit).
-- geni
On 10/19/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/19/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure you're being sarcastic here, or whether you really mean
it...
Anyway, Wikipedia is NOT a democracy.
--Mgm
For the most part wikipedia is functionaly a democracy that uses super majorities. There isn't really any other way to run things since any project that includes (to pick a random example) me and tony sideway is going to have dificulty reaching a consensus on anything (ok I think we are on the same side as to letting people without accounts edit).
I agree totally. Wikipedia used to not be a democracy, but as it has grown it has become more and more democratic. I should mention that I don't mean a pure democracy, but rather democracy in the sense of "run by the people, possibly through elected representatives". What the arb committee says basically goes, and the arb committee is mostly elected. Yes, the board has the power to override the arb committee in theory, and the majority of the board is not elected, but so far that distinction has not actually come into play (I think).
--
geni
Anthony
From: Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com
Content be damned, we're here to run an internet democracy, not write an encyclopedia!
But that's exactly the argument that many people who claim "AfD is not working" and "everyone should have access to deleted articles" make.
Jay.
On 10/20/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com
Content be damned, we're here to run an internet democracy, not write an encyclopedia!
But that's exactly the argument that many people who claim "AfD is not working" and "everyone should have access to deleted articles" make.
Who would that be?
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
On 10/20/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/20/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com
Content be damned, we're here to run an internet democracy, not write an encyclopedia!
But that's exactly the argument that many people who claim "AfD is not working" and "everyone should have access to deleted articles" make.
Who would that be?
Indeed! Is anyone seriously asking for all deleted articles to be made accessible? What about all the copyright infringements and defamatory material? That just wouldn't make sense. This sounds like a straw man.
On 10/20/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/20/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/20/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com
Content be damned, we're here to run an internet democracy, not write an encyclopedia!
But that's exactly the argument that many people who claim "AfD is not working" and "everyone should have access to deleted articles" make.
Who would that be?
Indeed! Is anyone seriously asking for all deleted articles to be made accessible? What about all the copyright infringements and defamatory material? That just wouldn't make sense. This sounds like a straw man.
Actually, the point I was after is that it's those who want to make it easier to delete articles and reduce review are the ones trying to turn Wikipedia into a democracy, which is opposite of what Jay's email implied.
I don't know anyone who's actively trying to further democratize Wikipedia who is also in favor of keeping more marginal articles.
From where I sit, democratic populism appears to be an appeal on the
side of those who prefer deletion of the unfamiliar over accomodation of broad topics.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
On 10/20/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
From where I sit, democratic populism appears to be an appeal on the side of those who prefer deletion of the unfamiliar over accomodation of broad topics.
Oh, you mean the VFU situation. Oh let the children play.
From: Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com
On 10/20/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/20/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com
Content be damned, we're here to run an internet democracy, not write an encyclopedia!
But that's exactly the argument that many people who claim "AfD is not working" and "everyone should have access to deleted articles" make.
Who would that be?
Indeed! Is anyone seriously asking for all deleted articles to be made accessible? What about all the copyright infringements and defamatory material? That just wouldn't make sense. This sounds like a straw man.
Straw man arguments deserve similar responses. Stating that VFU is a check of proper process does not imply that "we're here to run an internet democracy, not write an encyclopedia!"
Jay.
On 10/20/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed! Is anyone seriously asking for all deleted articles to be made accessible? What about all the copyright infringements and defamatory material? That just wouldn't make sense. This sounds like a straw man.
Anthony DiPierro
-- geni
On 10/20/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/20/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed! Is anyone seriously asking for all deleted articles to be made accessible? What about all the copyright infringements and defamatory material? That just wouldn't make sense. This sounds like a straw man.
Anthony DiPierro
I never asked for copyright infringments to be made more accessible. Actually I think they should be made less accessible.
--
geni
On 10/20/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
I never asked for copyright infringments to be made more accessible. Actually I think they should be made less accessible.
However you know that this is not posible with the current softwear.
-- geni
On 10/20/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/20/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
I never asked for copyright infringments to be made more accessible. Actually I think they should be made less accessible.
However you know that this is not posible with the current softwear.
I'd gladly write the code if there is policy in place to implement it.
--
geni
Anthony
On 10/19/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
So you mean to say that if there's a "consensus" of a number of trusted users who vote to delete ("Delete, actor vanity") for example a Oscar nominated actor (they just don't know it), you're going with the majority and delete it even when there's one person saying "Keep, it's an Oscar nominated actor"? That's insane! Common sense should never be overthrown by blanket unreasoned votes. AFD is about the discussion.
--Mgm
So rewrite the article to include that fact and claim it as a significant change which it is.
-- geni
Why should there be a requirement that someone has to waste time by repeating the explanations given by other people for deleting an article?
If an article is non-notable, it's non-notable. There is no requirement that anyone who votes has to write explanations for anything. When you have 150 AFD noms per day, it is absurd to suggest that there is some sort of obligation to explain votes, especially when so many nominations are uncontested junk.
Very true. That is why I have many times contemplated writing an hourly cron script that votes "Keep, this article is notable" on each and every article on AfD. I have always assumed that such behaviour would be frowned upon. But if it is as you say, that the deletionists doesn't waste too many neutrons/vote, then why should I?
I'm pretty sure I could have this script completed before tonight... I'm very sure that there are alot of other rabid inclusionists out there that would also like to script-vote... Yes, this IS a threat.
-- mvh Björn
On 10/17/05, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
Very true. That is why I have many times contemplated writing an hourly cron script that votes "Keep, this article is notable" on each and every article on AfD. I have always assumed that such behaviour would be frowned upon. But if it is as you say, that the deletionists doesn't waste too many neutrons/vote, then why should I?
I'm pretty sure I could have this script completed before tonight... I'm very sure that there are alot of other rabid inclusionists out there that would also like to script-vote... Yes, this IS a threat.
-- mvh Björn
I refuse to belive that there are enough inclusionists out there stupid enough to try that tactic (if there were the debate would long since have been settled in favour of the pro-encylopedists). Firstly I would block the lot of you for operateing unauthorised bots. Secondaly the amount of credibilty you would lose for voteing mass keep on hoax articles would be sevearly damageing in the greak game of wikipedia politics.
-- geni
I felt existed with the current deletion-related policies, that there's no easy way to revisit a deletion that's been closed like this and to challenge votes made without any significant justification provided.
That's the whole point, if there's a Wayback Machine link that shows it was popular there's enough justification for undeletion, but if justification with extra info wasn't required all deletions would be contested by people who are trying to get something into Wikipedia for their own purposes rather than creating an encyclopedia. A safeguard is needed.
--Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
I felt existed with the current deletion-related policies, that there's no easy way to revisit a deletion that's been closed like this and to challenge votes made without any significant justification provided.
That's the whole point, if there's a Wayback Machine link that shows it was popular there's enough justification for undeletion, but if justification with extra info wasn't required all deletions would be contested by people who are trying to get something into Wikipedia for their own purposes rather than creating an encyclopedia. A safeguard is needed.
I don't have any interest in web comics or the Wayback Machine. This pretty well qualifies me for not having a specific opinion on the matter. I understand that it was Bryan's interest in that subject that led to his comments. To the extent that you quote him it is about a far more important and far more general issue. That issue does not depend on the justifications that you used for deleting a particular type of article.
Bryan has been around since Wikipedia's first year, and has a proven track record of acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia. I don't see him as pushing a POV for his own purposes. The fact that he has endured some of the bullshit that passes for opinion for so long adds considerable weight to his opinion. Imputing the motive that others are trying to keep an article for purposes of their own is an assumption of bad faith.
He is talking about the need for safeguards, safeguards against having deletions that get so caught up in bureaucratic process that no wrong can be undone.
When VfU gets hung up on the matter of process vs. content it has perhaps reached the point where it should be scrapped entirely. Let it be replaced by a policy that *any* decided AfD is reopenable by anyone. This does not imply automatic undeletion, but it will certainly make it easier for those of us who do not spend all our time on AfD like a mother bird waiting for her eggs to hatch, or do not learn that an article has even existed until it is deleted.
Ec
On 10/13/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/12/05, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
You can always write an article from scratch. If the assholes speedy it you'll have others on your side to restore it.
No, you can't. If you recreate an article on the same topic as a previously deleted one, it will be speedied, and VFU won't likely accept that it was "rewritten" as an excuse.
In practice a completely new article may get a little opposition, but it isn't at all speediable and if speedied can be unilaterally undeleted. Another strategy is to merge the information into another article and recreate as a redirect. That would be impossible to misrepresent as a recreation.
On 10/13/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/12/05, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
You can always write an article from scratch. If the assholes speedy it you'll have others on your side to restore it.
No, you can't. If you recreate an article on the same topic as a previously deleted one, it will be speedied, and VFU won't likely accept that it was "rewritten" as an excuse.
Kelly _______________________________________________
That would be against policy unless the articles were similar. I would start a VFU debate and make sure I'd add proof this comic was indeed popular. With the lack of Google hits initially cited it was unverifiable for the original voters. If you can change that they might change their mind.
--Mgm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 10/13/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/12/05, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
You can always write an article from scratch. If the assholes speedy it you'll have others on your side to restore it.
No, you can't. If you recreate an article on the same topic as a previously deleted one, it will be speedied, and VFU won't likely accept that it was "rewritten" as an excuse.
Kelly _______________________________________________
That would be against policy unless the articles were similar. I would start a VFU debate and make sure I'd add proof this comic was indeed popular. With the lack of Google hits initially cited it was unverifiable for the original voters. If you can change that they might change their mind.
Unfortunately, people seem to think that AfD is Perfect and that you can't undelete if the AfD was "valid"; I've seen several votes on VfU simply saying "Keep deleted, valid AfD". What AfD (and VfU) needs is a swift kick in the pants.
And possibly the bloc voters need one too.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
AFDs can be valid, but if the people who voted were misinformed or if additional info has come to light, being valid doesn't mean the AFD decision should remain indefinitely. "Keep deleted, valid AFD" has reached a point when such a comment is no longer informative. I think such comments should be discounted and people should be encouraged to explain why they think there's no reason to revisit the decision in question.
--Mgm
On 10/13/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 10/13/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/12/05, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
You can always write an article from scratch. If the assholes speedy it you'll have others on your side to restore it.
No, you can't. If you recreate an article on the same topic as a previously deleted one, it will be speedied, and VFU won't likely accept that it was "rewritten" as an excuse.
Kelly _______________________________________________
That would be against policy unless the articles were similar. I would start a VFU debate and make sure I'd add proof this comic was indeed popular. With the lack of Google hits initially cited it was unverifiable for the original voters. If you can change that they might change their mind.
Unfortunately, people seem to think that AfD is Perfect and that you can't undelete if the AfD was "valid"; I've seen several votes on VfU simply saying "Keep deleted, valid AfD". What AfD (and VfU) needs is a swift kick in the pants.
And possibly the bloc voters need one too.
Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQEVAwUBQ04uI7MAAH8MeUlWAQh4jQgAsuwbvJffpU6qGujJhBMKwdq+T3TFGzKe J/NT9n1Y/y0dIqUKkct4wGTP6CCpvOlGUQ4xGj/Yk2F06o6hkv1T8yQUhCQO8W23 Ruhf/EJnQ5++qz9IyI2pkef7mqDOAhV8TJkfZ3sqU7txdhrDP5z/M2RehmMReDwm 8x3D5QA55jdP8a8PjHUZQuM8+AzSvl4saaKBW5B5PcrKbVpfxI9+pQs6sc/IR3bj yZW/zxpwWKz+dymHcPqG0iPzqpQrPanVtpsAOybb2V01gboTannuNdeCgQTiVBGD jE4mpxUdpD2jv9GnKDAICk38O8P389JU193Z9xAbzSaao2enSdiP1Q== =DMNy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Well, we don't want really crappy stuff put up over and over, but when something decent comes along we don't want automatic deletion. Perhaps a rule that after a year any article could be recreated?
Fred
On Oct 13, 2005, at 3:51 AM, Alphax wrote:
Unfortunately, people seem to think that AfD is Perfect and that you can't undelete if the AfD was "valid"; I've seen several votes on VfU simply saying "Keep deleted, valid AfD". What AfD (and VfU) needs is a swift kick in the pants.
And possibly the bloc voters need one too.
Fred Bauder wrote:
Well, we don't want really crappy stuff put up over and over, but when something decent comes along we don't want automatic deletion. Perhaps a rule that after a year any article could be recreated?
But IMO the article in question should be recreated _now_, I see no reason to wait in this particular case. I've located the comic's archives in the Wayback Machine, it seems just as notable as the artist's current comic (which survived VfD). The only difference was that the nominator apparently didn't know the archives had long ago been taken down and so couldn't find anything in a Google search to establish that. If I wait a year the deletion archives might be cleared or I might die, who knows? And since the contents of the deleted article were fine I intend to use that text as a basis for the recreation, which means the GFDL requires that the edit history be restored along with it.
Anyway, my current plan is to wait for one week and then undelete and edit the article. I suspect that if it gets "noticed" it'll be speedied and I'll be complained at for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, but such is life. I'll post an update here describing the results of the attempt.
On 10/13/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
die, who knows? And since the contents of the deleted article were fine I intend to use that text as a basis for the recreation, which means the GFDL requires that the edit history be restored along with it.
Surely there are other ways to approximate compliance with the GFDL other than the history maintained by Wikipedia. But in any case, the edit history of deleted articles is already available.
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 10/13/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
die, who knows? And since the contents of the deleted article were fine I intend to use that text as a basis for the recreation, which means the GFDL requires that the edit history be restored along with it.
Surely there are other ways to approximate compliance with the GFDL other than the history maintained by Wikipedia. But in any case, the edit history of deleted articles is already available.
I suppose I could include attributions for the various contributors using edit summaries, HTML comments, or on the talk page. But this seems like an awful lot of extra effort to go to to fulfil the letter of AfD's "law", what would be the point when I can just undelete the thing and have the edit history back in full?
On 10/13/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 10/13/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
die, who knows? And since the contents of the deleted article were fine I intend to use that text as a basis for the recreation, which means the GFDL requires that the edit history be restored along with it.
Surely there are other ways to approximate compliance with the GFDL
other
than the history maintained by Wikipedia. But in any case, the edit
history
of deleted articles is already available.
I suppose I could include attributions for the various contributors using edit summaries, HTML comments, or on the talk page. But this seems like an awful lot of extra effort to go to to fulfil the letter of AfD's "law", what would be the point when I can just undelete the thing and have the edit history back in full?
Well, like I said, the edit history of deleted articles is already there. In case you didn't understand what I meant, when you click on "history" there will be a link which reads "View X deleted editshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Ria_Fulton?" and clicking on that will provide you with the history information (anyone can see the edit history, not just admins). Furthermore, history only undeletion is allowed without a vote anyway (at least, it was last time I checked, a few months ago). Finally, it's really not that hard to copy/paste the edit history into the talk page, and that approximately fulfills the GFDL requirements as well as any other system being used on the wiki.
I really think you're getting all worried over nothing.
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Well, like I said, the edit history of deleted articles is already there. In case you didn't understand what I meant, when you click on "history" there will be a link which reads "View X deleted editshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Ria_Fulton?" and clicking on that will provide you with the history information (anyone can see the edit history, not just admins). Furthermore, history only undeletion is allowed without a vote anyway (at least, it was last time I checked, a few months ago).
And yet my request for a history only undelete of [[White Horse Circle]] a few weeks ago became a vote.
On 10/13/05, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Well, like I said, the edit history of deleted articles is already
there. In
case you didn't understand what I meant, when you click on "history"
there
will be a link which reads "View X deleted editshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Ria_Fulton?" and clicking on that will provide you with the history information
(anyone
can see the edit history, not just admins). Furthermore, history only undeletion is allowed without a vote anyway (at least, it was last time
I
checked, a few months ago).
And yet my request for a history only undelete of [[White Horse Circle]] a few weeks ago became a vote.
Just because admins *can* do something doesn't mean they have to. On [[Wikipedia:Undeletion policy]], it says ""History only" undeletions can always be performed without needing to list the articles on the votes for undeletion page, and don't need to be kept for a full ten days. Article histories that include copyright violationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problemsshould not be undeleted." Of course, this is the same page gives a reason for undeletion saying: "Article wrongly deleted (ie that Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored). This may happen because they were not aware of the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion(AFD) or Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellaneous_deletion(MD), or because it was deleted without being listed on AFD, or because they objected to deletion on *bona fide* grounds but were improperly ignored."
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Well, like I said, the edit history of deleted articles is already there.
The article histories of deleted articles have been cleared out of the database before, it could happen again. I don't trust it for long-term storage.
I really think you're getting all worried over nothing.
I guess I'll see whether I am when I see what happens when I undelete it. :) I hope I am. Regardless, though, it'd be nice to have a clearer way to resurrect deleted articles like this and ideally a policy of disregarding votes that lack justification. That's what sparked my current disgruntlement.
On 10/13/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Well, like I said, the edit history of deleted articles is already there.
The article histories of deleted articles have been cleared out of the database before, it could happen again. I don't trust it for long-term storage.
Fair enough. In this case typing "based on deleted article by Oleg Alexandrov and Hahnchen" into the edit summary wouldn't be so hard though :). You could even give credit to Mr. 12.214.62.234 http://12.214.62.234if you care. And now that I look at it, Oleg and Hahnchen seem to have only removed information, so they don't have to be credited anyway. So all that's left is Mr. 12.214.62.234 http://12.214.62.234. I don't think the GFDL requires us to credit an IP address.
But yeah, it's the principle of the thing, I guess. Incidently, is the information about the authors of the deleted versions kept in a part of the database that might get cleared out? I'd hope not, but now that you mention it maybe it is.
I really think you're getting all worried over nothing.
I guess I'll see whether I am when I see what happens when I undelete it. :) I hope I am. Regardless, though, it'd be nice to have a clearer way to resurrect deleted articles like this and ideally a policy of disregarding votes that lack justification. That's what sparked my current disgruntlement.
I agree, but it really has nothing to do with GFDL attribution requirements.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 10/13/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 10/13/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
die, who knows? And since the contents of the deleted article were fine I intend to use that text as a basis for the recreation, which means the GFDL requires that the edit history be restored along with it.
Surely there are other ways to approximate compliance with the GFDL other
than the history maintained by Wikipedia. But in any case, the edit history
of deleted articles is already available.
I suppose I could include attributions for the various contributors using edit summaries, HTML comments, or on the talk page. But this seems like an awful lot of extra effort to go to to fulfil the letter of AfD's "law", what would be the point when I can just undelete the thing and have the edit history back in full?
Well, like I said, the edit history of deleted articles is already there. In case you didn't understand what I meant, when you click on "history" there will be a link which reads "View X deleted editshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Ria_Fulton?" and clicking on that will provide you with the history information (anyone can see the edit history, not just admins). Furthermore, history only undeletion is allowed without a vote anyway (at least, it was last time I checked, a few months ago). Finally, it's really not that hard to copy/paste the edit history into the talk page, and that approximately fulfills the GFDL requirements as well as any other system being used on the wiki.
Those edit histories are pretty useless when they don't show who made what edit. They're just a list of names and times. They're added to the talk page of things that are transwikied to Wiktionary where it's just as well to do a fresh rewrite of the article and delete the so-called history.
Ec
Well, like I said, the edit history of deleted articles is already there.
In
case you didn't understand what I meant, when you click on "history"
there
will be a link which reads "View X deleted editshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Ria_Fulton?" and clicking on that will provide you with the history information
(anyone
can see the edit history, not just admins). Furthermore, history only undeletion is allowed without a vote anyway (at least, it was last time I checked, a few months ago). Finally, it's really not that hard to
copy/paste
the edit history into the talk page, and that approximately fulfills the GFDL requirements as well as any other system being used on the wiki.
Those edit histories are pretty useless when they don't show who made what edit. They're just a list of names and times. They're added to the talk page of things that are transwikied to Wiktionary where it's just as well to do a fresh rewrite of the article and delete the so-called history.
The GFDL only requires the title, the name, the year, and the publisher, in the section entitled history. So yeah, they're useless, but they give some semblance of GFDL compliance.
Ec
Anthony
Who care if that article ''The Jar'' get deleted from wikipedia. If wikipedia don't want this webcomic article, than www.comixpedia.orghttp://www.comixpedia.orgcan have it. In that situtation everyone win! Because Wikipedia don't want this particular article, another wiki licensed under the GNUFDL can have it. In this case, an encyclopedia dedicated to webcomics who don't care about notablity/popluarity of a webcomic. In fact, we already tranwiki the article "The Jar" with credits to Wikipedia. See http://www.comixpedia.org/index.php/The_Jar So absolutely no harm done..
On 10/12/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I just came across this AfD when a link to the deleted article was removed from another I had watchlisted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Jar
I never read the webcomic The Jar myself, but I know that it existed and was popular, and also that when Kittyhawk moved on to other projects the webcomic's archive was taken offline. The nominator saw the resulting lack of Google results and nominated it solely on account of "none notability." As a result of this grand consensus of four voters, three of whom explained their vote with "nn" and one with "as per nom", Wikipedia will forever more lack an article on this topic. Kind of a pity since I've always been curious about what I missed - I've been told that it had a better plot than Kittyhawk's current strip, which survived a VfD last year.
There were tons of great ideas being kicked around on this mailing list a few weeks back for how to change the deletion process, either as a short-term experiment or long-term reform, has it all quietly passed from everyone's radars now? Or is there some other forum the discussion moved to that I missed? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Han Dao wrote:
Who care if that article ''The Jar'' get deleted from wikipedia. If wikipedia don't want this webcomic article, than www.comixpedia.orghttp://www.comixpedia.orgcan have it. In that situtation everyone win! Because Wikipedia don't want this particular article, another wiki licensed under the GNUFDL can have it.
But it's not a case that "Wikipedia doesn't want this article", because Wikipedia isn't a monolithic entity with one opinion. I personally believe that every web comic with at least a hundred strips or so (as a very rough benchmark) deserves an article. Webcomics are somewhat of a specialized subject for an encyclopedia, sure, but Wikipedia is capable of specializing in _everything_.
In this case, an encyclopedia dedicated to webcomics who don't care about notablity/popluarity of a webcomic. In fact, we already tranwiki the article "The Jar" with credits to Wikipedia. See http://www.comixpedia.org/index.php/The_Jar So absolutely no harm done..
Well, there's been arguments put forward that this sort of thing is a "fork" that does indeed harm Wikipedia (and perhaps the forked wiki too) by subjecting both to contributor drain - if the two wikis were merged they'd each have more people working on their contents. I'm not so sure about this, but I nevertheless think it's probably a net loss to be deleting content from Wikipedia that's perfectly acceptable for other encyclopedias to cover.
But in any event, it's still only tangentally related to the issue that really bugged me here - that a small handful of voters could cast votes with paltry or nonexistant justifications given for them, and then that decision becomes very difficult to argue afterward. The whole "what is notable, and should notability matter" issue is another ball of wax.
Well, there's been arguments put forward that this sort of thing is a "fork" that does indeed harm Wikipedia (and perhaps the forked wiki too) by subjecting both to contributor drain - if the two wikis were merged they'd each have more people working on their contents. I'm not so sure about this, but I nevertheless think it's probably a net loss to be deleting content from Wikipedia that's perfectly acceptable for other encyclopedias to cover.
The problem with this is, that Comixpedia is a collection of all webcomics they can think of there's no editorial control and literally anything can get in. Merging that with Wikipedia would introduce scores of what are basically vanity articles for the creators. Just try arguing for undeletion with a solid claim backed up by references.
--Mgm
Actually...we don't let everything get in. Only webcomics article get in. Those vanity article tends to get edited into a encyclopedic article. We even have a vague editorial policy like all article must be in NPOV. I have a problem with those creators who create vanity article. Thier article completely sucks, and self promoting, and I have to clean up their freaking mess almost everyday. We don't let commerical adversiting in there, spaming our encyclopedia with 100+ characters pages that have no purpose (In one incident, I deleted more than 100 articles relating to every single comic strips of Gaming Guardian.) Litterally any webcomics stuff can get in if they are real unless they just plain grabage not worth editing, irrevleant, orginal research, a review, hoax, etc. On 10/16/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Well, there's been arguments put forward that this sort of thing is a "fork" that does indeed harm Wikipedia (and perhaps the forked wiki too) by subjecting both to contributor drain - if the two wikis were merged they'd each have more people working on their contents. I'm not so sure about this, but I nevertheless think it's probably a net loss to be deleting content from Wikipedia that's perfectly acceptable for other encyclopedias to cover.
The problem with this is, that Comixpedia is a collection of all webcomics they can think of there's no editorial control and literally anything can get in. Merging that with Wikipedia would introduce scores of what are basically vanity articles for the creators. Just try arguing for undeletion with a solid claim backed up by references.
--Mgm _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l