The Price we pay from the Deletionists: Paul Graham's Y-Combinator is actively looking to fund Wikipedia-like startup that does away with them.
See: http://ycombinator.com/ideas.html (Ideas we are looking to sponsor)
- More open alternatives to Wikipedia. Deletionists rule Wikipedia. Ironically, they're constrained by print-era thinking. What harm does it do if an online reference has a long tail of articles that are only interesting to a few people, so long as everyone can still find whatever they're looking for? There is room to do to Wikipedia what Wikipedia did to Britannica.
On that note, why don't we enable access to deleted content ? It's already there, we can just dump them nightly into a big file.
2008/7/19 Achille achille.listserv@gmail.com:
The Price we pay from the Deletionists: Paul Graham's Y-Combinator is actively looking to fund Wikipedia-like startup that does away with them.
Been tried. For various reasons it hasn't worked out so far.
See: http://ycombinator.com/ideas.html (Ideas we are looking to sponsor)
- More open alternatives to Wikipedia. Deletionists rule Wikipedia. Ironically, they're constrained by print-era thinking. What harm does it do if an online reference has a long tail of articles that are only interesting to a few people, so long as everyone can still find whatever they're looking for? There is room to do to Wikipedia what Wikipedia did to Britannica.
Yes it's called the world wide web.
It's the ah higher end articles that make wikipedia attractive to the far end of the long tail and without that you are up against facebook myspace and email spam folders.
The various areas that we don't cover but people are still interested in writing non advert articles are rapidly getting cleaned up by wikia and encyclopedia dramatica. On the other hand no one seems to have really worked out how to build a successful porn wiki yet. Or a celebrity gossip wiki but I feel that market may already be rather saturated.
On that note, why don't we enable access to deleted content ? It's already there, we can just dump them nightly into a big file.
Because the deletion database is lousy with copyvios libel and privacy violations. People from time to time want to save everything but then discover that everything includes an unreasonable number of "bob is gay" articles.
geni:
See: http://ycombinator.com/ideas.html (Ideas we are looking to sponsor)
- More open alternatives to Wikipedia. Deletionists rule Wikipedia. Ironically, they're constrained by print-era thinking. What harm does it do if an online reference has a long tail of articles that are only interesting to a few people, so long as everyone can still find whatever they're looking for? There is room to do to Wikipedia what Wikipedia did to Britannica.
Yes it's called the world wide web.
Can't Britannica argue the same thing about wikipedia?
why don't we enable access to deleted content ?
Because the deletion database is lousy with copyvios libel and privacy violations.
Then purge all the libels and delete the 'non notables' Or simply don't delete the non notables, but mark them as such.
2008/7/20 Achille achille.listserv@gmail.com:
geni:
See: http://ycombinator.com/ideas.html (Ideas we are looking to sponsor)
- More open alternatives to Wikipedia. Deletionists rule Wikipedia. Ironically, they're constrained by print-era thinking. What harm does it do if an online reference has a long tail of articles that are only interesting to a few people, so long as everyone can still find whatever they're looking for? There is room to do to Wikipedia what Wikipedia did to Britannica.
Yes it's called the world wide web.
Can't Britannica argue the same thing about wikipedia?
Um no. Remember it wasn't wikipedia that killed Britannica. Encarta saw to that before the web got going.
why don't we enable access to deleted content ?
Because the deletion database is lousy with copyvios libel and privacy violations.
Then purge all the libels and delete the 'non notables'
That sounds like effort so no.
Or simply don't delete the non notables, but mark them as such.
Hey you are free to hang out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:NewPages and copy anything you think will be deleted for lack of notability.
See your argument might have some validity if the cost in man minutes to maintain content was zero (particularly when you throw in things like NPOV). It is not. Nor is wikipedia a free web host.
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Achille achille.listserv@gmail.com wrote:
The Price we pay from the Deletionists: Paul Graham's Y-Combinator is actively looking to fund Wikipedia-like startup that does away with them.
See: http://ycombinator.com/ideas.html (Ideas we are looking to sponsor)
- More open alternatives to Wikipedia. Deletionists rule Wikipedia. Ironically, they're constrained by print-era thinking. What harm does it do if an online reference has a long tail of articles that are only interesting to a few people, so long as everyone can still find whatever they're looking for? There is room to do to Wikipedia what Wikipedia did to Britannica.
On that note, why don't we enable access to deleted content ? It's already there, we can just dump them nightly into a big file.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"Wikipedia minus what quality control it manages to have" does not sound like an attractive alternative to me, nor something I would use in place of Wikipedia, but right to fork is inherent in all free projects. If someone feels that such a project would be valuable, they have every right to take a database dump and go in whatever direction they want with it. I don't personally foresee its success, but I could be wrong. If it is successful, more power to it, if not, then so be it.
If I were looking at possible alternatives, I would say an alternative with -better- quality control would be more likely to succeed than something with less.
2008/7/20 Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com:
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Achille achille.listserv@gmail.com wrote:
The Price we pay from the Deletionists: Paul Graham's Y-Combinator is actively looking to fund Wikipedia-like startup that does away with them.
See: http://ycombinator.com/ideas.html (Ideas we are looking to sponsor)
- More open alternatives to Wikipedia. Deletionists rule Wikipedia. Ironically, they're constrained by print-era thinking. What harm does it do if an online reference has a long tail of articles that are only interesting to a few people, so long as everyone can still find whatever they're looking for? There is room to do to Wikipedia what Wikipedia did to Britannica.
On that note, why don't we enable access to deleted content ? It's already there, we can just dump them nightly into a big file.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"Wikipedia minus what quality control it manages to have" does not sound like an attractive alternative to me, nor something I would use in place of Wikipedia, but right to fork is inherent in all free projects. If someone feels that such a project would be valuable, they have every right to take a database dump and go in whatever direction they want with it. I don't personally foresee its success, but I could be wrong. If it is successful, more power to it, if not, then so be it.
If I were looking at possible alternatives, I would say an alternative with -better- quality control would be more likely to succeed than something with less.
Although there are plenty of people turned-off and turned-away by the deletion of factually correct, verifiable and referenced articles. There is nothing quite as disheartnening as working on an article, only for a faceless gang of self-appointed AfDers to come along and decide that this article falls below an arbitrary threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. My Wikipedia experience has been significantly soured by such arbitrary deletions and my efforts toward Wikipedia have fallen off recently as a result.
If I knew that my work could survive at least in some form (a publicly-viewable deletion namespace with libel and slander removed, e.g.), perhaps I would allow myself to get more excited about working on Wikipedia again.
2008/7/20 Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com:
Although there are plenty of people turned-off and turned-away by the deletion of factually correct, verifiable and referenced articles. There is nothing quite as disheartnening as working on an article, only for a faceless gang of self-appointed AfDers to come along and decide that this article falls below an arbitrary threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. My Wikipedia experience has been significantly soured by such arbitrary deletions and my efforts toward Wikipedia have fallen off recently as a result.
Getting a properly reffed article deleted is quite a trick.
If I knew that my work could survive at least in some form (a publicly-viewable deletion namespace with libel and slander removed, e.g.), perhaps I would allow myself to get more excited about working on Wikipedia again.
If you wrote it yourself there are no shortage of free webhosts on which it can survive.
2008/7/20 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2008/7/20 Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com:
Although there are plenty of people turned-off and turned-away by the deletion of factually correct, verifiable and referenced articles. There is nothing quite as disheartnening as working on an article, only for a faceless gang of self-appointed AfDers to come along and decide that this article falls below an arbitrary threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. My Wikipedia experience has been significantly soured by such arbitrary deletions and my efforts toward Wikipedia have fallen off recently as a result.
Getting a properly reffed article deleted is quite a trick.
If I knew that my work could survive at least in some form (a publicly-viewable deletion namespace with libel and slander removed, e.g.), perhaps I would allow myself to get more excited about working on Wikipedia again.
If you wrote it yourself there are no shortage of free webhosts on which it can survive.
The point isn't about a particular article ("my work" was a wrong expression to use here): it is to do with the efforts I put into editing Wikipedia and whether it is worth it. I've had problems with referenced, factually-accurate and verifiable articles that I have worked on being deleted due to questions to notability. It is also disheartening to go to AfD and see articles which are referenced, factually-accurate and verifiable being deleted due to notability.
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 4:16 AM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
2008/7/20 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2008/7/20 Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com:
Although there are plenty of people turned-off and turned-away by the deletion of factually correct, verifiable and referenced articles. There is nothing quite as disheartnening as working on an article, only for a faceless gang of self-appointed AfDers to come along and decide that this article falls below an arbitrary threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. My Wikipedia experience has been significantly soured by such arbitrary deletions and my efforts toward Wikipedia have fallen off recently as a result.
Getting a properly reffed article deleted is quite a trick.
If I knew that my work could survive at least in some form (a publicly-viewable deletion namespace with libel and slander removed, e.g.), perhaps I would allow myself to get more excited about working on Wikipedia again.
If you wrote it yourself there are no shortage of free webhosts on which it can survive.
The point isn't about a particular article ("my work" was a wrong expression to use here): it is to do with the efforts I put into editing Wikipedia and whether it is worth it. I've had problems with referenced, factually-accurate and verifiable articles that I have worked on being deleted due to questions to notability. It is also disheartening to go to AfD and see articles which are referenced, factually-accurate and verifiable being deleted due to notability.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I can write a referenced, factually-accurate and verifiable (public records) article about my car or my dog, or for that matter myself. For quality control and undue weight reasons, we still shouldn't -have- those articles. That's why we ask "Has someone who is reliable on this subject and doesn't have any interest in promoting it written a significant amount about it?" It's really a reasonable question, and keeps a lot of garbage out. However, as always, one man's trash is another man's treasure, and if someone else would like to start up a project to put it -elsewhere-, be it fancruft on a Wikia or all-imaginable-kinds-of-cruft on some new project, that's just fine. It's just not allowed -on Wikipedia-, the Web's a big place, and (unless it's a copyvio, libel, or something else illegal), there's likely a place where it does fit in.
Perhaps the solution to is for Wikimedia to start an entirely different projects that "out wikipedias wikipedia". One that has less strict content requirements, while at the same time, not having the same reputation for quality that we would hope for Wikipedia.
Personally, I'd like to see at least THREE different projects. One to be a 100% reputable, citable encyclopedia of the sort "If you see it in the Sun, it's so". Nothing but featured articles, slow to release new versions of articles, potentially signed by experts.
Another project would be more diverse but far far less reputable. Article forks allowed, biased articles, editorial articles. Utterly uncitable, but offering greater diversity of opinion.
And then the third project, our own Wikipedia, is the happy medium between the two. No guarantee that any given article is high-quality, but some effort is made to delete (or at least tag) articles of low quality, non-neutral POV, article-forks, etc.
Of course, the real trick would be coming up with a branding of some sort so that they don't step on each others toes and people can easily distinguished between the three.
We could let some other foundation create these project-- but why not us?
Alec
On 7/20/08, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 4:16 AM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
2008/7/20 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2008/7/20 Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com:
Although there are plenty of people turned-off and turned-away by the deletion of factually correct, verifiable and referenced articles. There is nothing quite as disheartnening as working on an article, only for a faceless gang of self-appointed AfDers to come along and decide that this article falls below an arbitrary threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. My Wikipedia experience has been significantly soured by such arbitrary deletions and my efforts toward Wikipedia have fallen off recently as a result.
Getting a properly reffed article deleted is quite a trick.
If I knew that my work could survive at least in some form (a publicly-viewable deletion namespace with libel and slander removed, e.g.), perhaps I would allow myself to get more excited about working on Wikipedia again.
If you wrote it yourself there are no shortage of free webhosts on which it can survive.
The point isn't about a particular article ("my work" was a wrong expression to use here): it is to do with the efforts I put into editing Wikipedia and whether it is worth it. I've had problems with referenced, factually-accurate and verifiable articles that I have worked on being deleted due to questions to notability. It is also disheartening to go to AfD and see articles which are referenced, factually-accurate and verifiable being deleted due to notability.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I can write a referenced, factually-accurate and verifiable (public records) article about my car or my dog, or for that matter myself. For quality control and undue weight reasons, we still shouldn't -have- those articles. That's why we ask "Has someone who is reliable on this subject and doesn't have any interest in promoting it written a significant amount about it?" It's really a reasonable question, and keeps a lot of garbage out. However, as always, one man's trash is another man's treasure, and if someone else would like to start up a project to put it -elsewhere-, be it fancruft on a Wikia or all-imaginable-kinds-of-cruft on some new project, that's just fine. It's just not allowed -on Wikipedia-, the Web's a big place, and (unless it's a copyvio, libel, or something else illegal), there's likely a place where it does fit in.
-- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2008/7/20 Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 4:16 AM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
2008/7/20 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2008/7/20 Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com:
Although there are plenty of people turned-off and turned-away by the deletion of factually correct, verifiable and referenced articles. There is nothing quite as disheartnening as working on an article, only for a faceless gang of self-appointed AfDers to come along and decide that this article falls below an arbitrary threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. My Wikipedia experience has been significantly soured by such arbitrary deletions and my efforts toward Wikipedia have fallen off recently as a result.
Getting a properly reffed article deleted is quite a trick.
If I knew that my work could survive at least in some form (a publicly-viewable deletion namespace with libel and slander removed, e.g.), perhaps I would allow myself to get more excited about working on Wikipedia again.
If you wrote it yourself there are no shortage of free webhosts on which it can survive.
The point isn't about a particular article ("my work" was a wrong expression to use here): it is to do with the efforts I put into editing Wikipedia and whether it is worth it. I've had problems with referenced, factually-accurate and verifiable articles that I have worked on being deleted due to questions to notability. It is also disheartening to go to AfD and see articles which are referenced, factually-accurate and verifiable being deleted due to notability.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I can write a referenced, factually-accurate and verifiable (public records) article about my car or my dog, or for that matter myself. For quality control and undue weight reasons, we still shouldn't -have- those articles. That's why we ask "Has someone who is reliable on this subject and doesn't have any interest in promoting it written a significant amount about it?" It's really a reasonable question, and keeps a lot of garbage out. However, as always, one man's trash is another man's treasure, and if someone else would like to start up a project to put it -elsewhere-, be it fancruft on a Wikia or all-imaginable-kinds-of-cruft on some new project, that's just fine. It's just not allowed -on Wikipedia-, the Web's a big place, and (unless it's a copyvio, libel, or something else illegal), there's likely a place where it does fit in.
And this would be the opposite extreme. But I am not suggesting this. For what it's worth, your car or your dog is likely not independently verifiable in reliable sources?
My issue is with where we currently place the threshold for incusion - it tends to be quite arbitrary, and informed by notions of what encyclopedias have previously contained. As a result, a much larger amount of verifiable information about pop culture falls under the threshold; while the threshold for science inclusion is much lower. I am not contending how low the threshold is for science subjects - that is fantastic - I am contending how high we set the threshold for pop culture.
What is the harm or the damage in including articles on television episodes? These tend to be verifiable in independent, reliable sources, factually-accurate and referenced...
Finally, I understand that this content could find a place _somewhere_ on the web. That is not the issue. I am posting to a list called WikiEN-l and am discussing English Wikipedia policy. I disagree with how we set the threshold for inclusion, where we set it, and how we determine whether some content is under the threshold or not. I don't think "this content could be somewhere else" sufficiently explains why this content shouldn't be at English Wikipedia.
Essentially, what we decide to include in Wikipedia, along with how we decide to present this information, makes up what we think Wikipedia should be. I do not think Wikipedia should arbitrarily discriminate against television episodes based upon subjective ideas of what is "encyclopedic". If we can write an article on a television episode that is verifiable to reliable sources, factually accurate and referenced, I don't understand why this shouldn't be included. Particularly when it is bound to be helpful to someone, and might help bring more editors to Wikipedia who might start by editing something familiar to them. Ultimately what will bring more bitterness to editors: our current arbitrary position against some pop culture subjects, or a more inclusive, more eventualist approach to the problem?
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
2008/7/20 Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 4:16 AM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
2008/7/20 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2008/7/20 Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com:
Although there are plenty of people turned-off and turned-away by the deletion of factually correct, verifiable and referenced articles. There is nothing quite as disheartnening as working on an article, only for a faceless gang of self-appointed AfDers to come along and decide that this article falls below an arbitrary threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. My Wikipedia experience has been significantly soured by such arbitrary deletions and my efforts toward Wikipedia have fallen off recently as a result.
Getting a properly reffed article deleted is quite a trick.
If I knew that my work could survive at least in some form (a publicly-viewable deletion namespace with libel and slander removed, e.g.), perhaps I would allow myself to get more excited about working on Wikipedia again.
If you wrote it yourself there are no shortage of free webhosts on which it can survive.
The point isn't about a particular article ("my work" was a wrong expression to use here): it is to do with the efforts I put into editing Wikipedia and whether it is worth it. I've had problems with referenced, factually-accurate and verifiable articles that I have worked on being deleted due to questions to notability. It is also disheartening to go to AfD and see articles which are referenced, factually-accurate and verifiable being deleted due to notability.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I can write a referenced, factually-accurate and verifiable (public records) article about my car or my dog, or for that matter myself. For quality control and undue weight reasons, we still shouldn't -have- those articles. That's why we ask "Has someone who is reliable on this subject and doesn't have any interest in promoting it written a significant amount about it?" It's really a reasonable question, and keeps a lot of garbage out. However, as always, one man's trash is another man's treasure, and if someone else would like to start up a project to put it -elsewhere-, be it fancruft on a Wikia or all-imaginable-kinds-of-cruft on some new project, that's just fine. It's just not allowed -on Wikipedia-, the Web's a big place, and (unless it's a copyvio, libel, or something else illegal), there's likely a place where it does fit in.
And this would be the opposite extreme. But I am not suggesting this. For what it's worth, your car or your dog is likely not independently verifiable in reliable sources?
My issue is with where we currently place the threshold for incusion - it tends to be quite arbitrary, and informed by notions of what encyclopedias have previously contained. As a result, a much larger amount of verifiable information about pop culture falls under the threshold; while the threshold for science inclusion is much lower. I am not contending how low the threshold is for science subjects - that is fantastic - I am contending how high we set the threshold for pop culture.
What is the harm or the damage in including articles on television episodes? These tend to be verifiable in independent, reliable sources, factually-accurate and referenced...
Finally, I understand that this content could find a place _somewhere_ on the web. That is not the issue. I am posting to a list called WikiEN-l and am discussing English Wikipedia policy. I disagree with how we set the threshold for inclusion, where we set it, and how we determine whether some content is under the threshold or not. I don't think "this content could be somewhere else" sufficiently explains why this content shouldn't be at English Wikipedia.
Essentially, what we decide to include in Wikipedia, along with how we decide to present this information, makes up what we think Wikipedia should be. I do not think Wikipedia should arbitrarily discriminate against television episodes based upon subjective ideas of what is "encyclopedic". If we can write an article on a television episode that is verifiable to reliable sources, factually accurate and referenced, I don't understand why this shouldn't be included. Particularly when it is bound to be helpful to someone, and might help bring more editors to Wikipedia who might start by editing something familiar to them. Ultimately what will bring more bitterness to editors: our current arbitrary position against some pop culture subjects, or a more inclusive, more eventualist approach to the problem?
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I don't think we should sort by subject at all, that's just a version of systemic bias. If a TV episode has been significantly covered in -reliable sources independent of the subject-, then just like anything else, an article on it is fine. If not, we shouldn't have a full article on it, though of course mentioning it in a parent article might be appropriate. The same is true of asteroids, sports players, villages, roads, albums, books, whatever-else-have-you. We should simply follow what independent sources do, including, if they choose not to significantly cover the subject at all, following their lead and not covering it significantly.
Yes, my car and my dog are both verifiable through publicly accessible public records. And of course the existence of [[Seraphimblade (Wikipedia editor)]] is quite verifiable. That's why verifiability is not enough, we need independent and reliable sources, not just verifiability. Verifiability is necessary, not sufficient.
2008/7/20 Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com:
My issue is with where we currently place the threshold for incusion - it tends to be quite arbitrary, and informed by notions of what encyclopedias have previously contained. As a result, a much larger amount of verifiable information about pop culture falls under the threshold; while the threshold for science inclusion is much lower.
Not true. If we set our standards on what to include based on science areas most popular culture stuff would barely register. Science documents things. Even pretty obscure classes of organic compounds can rack up 100s of papers and we don't come close to covering that level of depth.
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, geni wrote:
Getting a properly reffed article deleted is quite a trick.
It's certainly a trick, but it's not a trick in the sense of being impossible to do. Surely you've heard of the episodes and characters deletion?
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, geni wrote:
Getting a properly reffed article deleted is quite a trick.
It's certainly a trick, but it's not a trick in the sense of being impossible to do. Surely you've heard of the episodes and characters deletion?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I don't recall many of these being deleted, though a lot were merged. I also didn't see many properly referenced articles in that, most of those articles were referenced mainly or solely to primary sources.
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Todd Allen wrote:
Getting a properly reffed article deleted is quite a trick.
It's certainly a trick, but it's not a trick in the sense of being impossible to do. Surely you've heard of the episodes and characters deletion?
I don't recall many of these being deleted, though a lot were merged.
That's quibbling over terminology. A "merge" which deletes all the info in the article is in practice a deletion.
I also didn't see many properly referenced articles in that, most of those articles were referenced mainly or solely to primary sources.
Works are acceptable as sources for themselves.
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:18 AM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Todd Allen wrote:
Getting a properly reffed article deleted is quite a trick.
It's certainly a trick, but it's not a trick in the sense of being impossible to do. Surely you've heard of the episodes and characters deletion?
I don't recall many of these being deleted, though a lot were merged.
That's quibbling over terminology. A "merge" which deletes all the info in the article is in practice a deletion.
I also didn't see many properly referenced articles in that, most of those articles were referenced mainly or solely to primary sources.
Works are acceptable as sources for themselves.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-In the context of an article supported by secondary sources-, works are acceptable sources for themselves. However, a primary source can never support an entire article on its own, significant independent and reliable material is required. If no one else has bothered to comment on the (episode|character|whatever it is), then we're acting as a first publisher by doing so, and we don't do that.
In that case, if someone tries, it's entirely proper to trim the unsustainable "article" and redirect or smerge it to a parent article or list. That is not a deletion. A deletion occurs when an admin presses the "delete" button. Anything else is an -edit-, many edits remove. Good editors trim. That is not "quibbling over terminology", it's a statement that you're saying a specific thing occurred (a deletion), and that, in the vast majority of cases, it did not. You can still disagree that the redirects should have occurred (just as you can disagree that any edit should have been made), but portraying them as something other than what they were is the classic [[straw man]] fallacy, and generally the defense for one using that fallacy is indeed that one who disagrees is quibbling over a minor point. If you're against what actually happened, by all means argue against it, but don't misrepresent it to make it look like something other than what it was.
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 6:03 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Getting a properly reffed article deleted is quite a trick.
Absolutely not, After his first arrest I created an article for Josh Wolf
And even though I had sources left and right, he was deleted for not being notable.
I have stopped editing ever since.
2008/7/20 Achille achille.listserv@gmail.com:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 6:03 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Getting a properly reffed article deleted is quite a trick.
Absolutely not, After his first arrest I created an article for Josh Wolf
And even though I had sources left and right, he was deleted for not being notable.
I have stopped editing ever since.
Link to the AFD?
2008/7/20 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2008/7/20 Achille achille.listserv@gmail.com:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 6:03 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Getting a properly reffed article deleted is quite a trick.
Absolutely not, After his first arrest I created an article for Josh Wolf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Wolf_(journalist)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Wolf_%28journalist%29
And even though I had sources left and right, he was deleted for not being notable.
I have stopped editing ever since.
Link to the AFD?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joshua_Wolf
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Achille achille.listserv@gmail.com wrote:
The Price we pay from the Deletionists: Paul Graham's Y-Combinator is actively looking to fund Wikipedia-like startup that does away with them.
See: http://ycombinator.com/ideas.html (Ideas we are looking to sponsor)
- More open alternatives to Wikipedia. Deletionists rule Wikipedia. Ironically, they're constrained by print-era thinking. What harm does it do if an online reference has a long tail of articles that are only interesting to a few people, so long as everyone can still find whatever they're looking for? There is room to do to Wikipedia what Wikipedia did to Britannica.
On that note, why don't we enable access to deleted content ? It's already there, we can just dump them nightly into a big file.
We've been experimenting with this idea at Wikia with a tool called WikiRecycle. The aim is to provide an archive of content that people can import to their own wikis. A bot grabs the content and author list for pages on AfD or PROD. By avoiding speedy and copyvio deletions, there's a better chance the content archived there is only unencyclopedic and not legally problematic.
http://start-your-own.wikia.com/wiki/Hey_%28Feat._Elisha_Mama%29 is an example. Click the history link for a list of authors. (Wikipedia doesn't allow export of all revisions and the sorts of articles that are likely to be deleted in the next week are most likely new and not in the database dump, which is why we have the list of authors and not the full page history.)
It's in beta testing right now, so any feedback is welcome.
Angela