-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
I am purposefully breaking the thread here:
Ryan Delaney wrote:
geni wrote:
Do you really want deletion in the hands of these people? Other than a mild interest in which of our edit warriors would come out on top I can see nothing posertive about this aproach.
It sounds to me like you just don't believe in the idea of a Wiki in general. I could make the exact same argument against letting anyone edit the article; the more persistent edit warrior always wins, so what's the point? If that's your view, we can't even have a discussion about this. But it makes me wonder why you are involved with Wikipedia at all. :\
I've said it before, I'll say it again:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia being a wiki is a means to an end, NOT the other way around.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 10/27/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
I am purposefully breaking the thread here:
Ryan Delaney wrote:
geni wrote:
Do you really want deletion in the hands of these people? Other than a mild interest in which of our edit warriors would come out on top I can see nothing posertive about this aproach.
It sounds to me like you just don't believe in the idea of a Wiki in general. I could make the exact same argument against letting anyone edit the article; the more persistent edit warrior always wins, so what's the point? If that's your view, we can't even have a discussion about this. But it makes me wonder why you are involved with Wikipedia at all. :\
I've said it before, I'll say it again:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia being a wiki is a means to an end, NOT the other way around.
Wikipedia is also a wiki. And while wiki might be merely a means to an end, it is the means that was adopted by Wikipedia. It also seems to work a lot better than the alternatives, at least for the type of budget Wikipedia has. You might have some other ideas how to create an encyclopedia, but I think you'll have a tough time convincing others in the project to adopt them. Do you believe in the idea of a Wiki in general? If not, why *do* you bother participating in Wikipedia, which is clearly a wiki and is going to continue to be so as long as Wikipedia still exists.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Alphax wrote:
I've said it before, I'll say it again:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia being a wiki is a means to an end, NOT the other way around.
Naturally. But that isn't an answer to the point I was making. If someone wants to say that "PWD is terrible because there would be edit wars" they have to explain why deletion edit wars would be any more horrible than content or vandalism edit wars. We can handle the last two well enough; what's wrong with the first? It just doesn't explain the basis for the judgment that deletion ought to be treated differently from other edits.
Ryan
On 10/27/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Alphax wrote:
I've said it before, I'll say it again:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia being a wiki is a means to an end, NOT the other way around.
Naturally. But that isn't an answer to the point I was making. If someone wants to say that "PWD is terrible because there would be edit wars" they have to explain why deletion edit wars would be any more horrible than content or vandalism edit wars. We can handle the last two well enough; what's wrong with the first? It just doesn't explain the basis for the judgment that deletion ought to be treated differently from other edits.
Ryan
Sure we can deal with vandalism and edit wars, but those are nearly unavoidable. Deletion wars can be avoided. Sure we can deal with them, but why create them if they're avoidable in the first place?
--Mgm
On 10/27/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Sure we can deal with vandalism and edit wars, but those are nearly unavoidable. Deletion wars can be avoided. Sure we can deal with them, but why create them if they're avoidable in the first place?
--Mgm
How can deletion wars be avoided? Through page protection? Page protection is available whether we use wiki deletion or the current deletion system. I don't see the difference.
On 10/27/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/27/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Sure we can deal with vandalism and edit wars, but those are nearly unavoidable. Deletion wars can be avoided. Sure we can deal with them, but why create them if they're avoidable in the first place?
--Mgm
How can deletion wars be avoided? Through page protection? Page protection is available whether we use wiki deletion or the current deletion system. I don't see the difference.
The difference is that without PWD we have virtually no deletion wars. It would create an aditional problem while we should be addressing people's attitudes instead of the process.
--Mgm
On 10/27/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/27/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/27/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Sure we can deal with vandalism and edit wars, but those are nearly unavoidable. Deletion wars can be avoided. Sure we can deal with them, but why create them if they're avoidable in the first place?
--Mgm
How can deletion wars be avoided? Through page protection? Page
protection
is available whether we use wiki deletion or the current deletion
system. I
don't see the difference.
The difference is that without PWD we have virtually no deletion wars.
What do you call it when the same article gets recreated and deleted over and over again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Protected_deleted_pages
It would create an aditional problem while we should be addressing
people's attitudes instead of the process.
--Mgm
You assert that it would create an additional problem. But that doesn't mean it would.
Anthony
On 10/28/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
What do you call it when the same article gets recreated and deleted over and over again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Protected_deleted_pages
Low grade vandalism which requires no subjective judgement on the part of admins.
-- geni
On 10/28/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/28/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
What do you call it when the same article gets recreated and deleted
over
and over again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Protected_deleted_pages
Low grade vandalism which requires no subjective judgement on the part of admins.
And yet you wouldn't call any delete war low grade vandalism? I believe Jimbo has gone so far as to call any revert war vandalism. Unless you propose that we only allow admins to create pages, blank pages, or change pages into redirects, I don't see how allowing non-admins to delete and undelete is going to change the ability of vandals to vandalize. Even then, you'd probably have to turn off the ability of non-admins to edit at all to have much of an effect on vandalism.
Deletion was given only to admins when adminship was supposed to be no big deal. Maybe if adminship were no big deal again you could restrict deletion only to admins.
On 10/28/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
And yet you wouldn't call any delete war low grade vandalism?
No I would call it a revert war
I believe Jimbo has gone so far as to call any revert war vandalism.
Perhaps but revert wars are far harder to deal with. Wrong version may be a joke but it is a real problem as well
Unless you propose that we only allow admins to create pages, blank pages, or change pages into redirects, I don't see how allowing non-admins to delete and undelete is going to change the ability of vandals to vandalize.
I'm not worried about vandals. I worried about good uses both of whom belive they are right. I have 4 options to use to deal with revert wars:
:RFC-slow and not hudgely effective :Arcom very slow is likely to view revert wars over single page as worth its time worrying about. :blocking. But only if they revert more than 3 times. Two sides of 4 all of whom revert twice. I can't block but that is one heck of revert war.
So we come at last to protection. Why not just shove the thing through AFD in the first place?
Even then, you'd probably have to turn off the ability of non-admins to edit at all to have much of an effect on vandalism.
There are differnces between revert wars and vandalism.
Deletion was given only to admins when adminship was supposed to be no big deal. Maybe if adminship were no big deal again you could restrict deletion only to admins.
And if people would stop trying to turn us into referees perhaps it can go back to being no big deal.
-- geni