There definitely seems to be this ongoing argument over the way AfD is handled, or whether or not it is being correct or accurate in its judgements for articles to be deleted. This seems to get dredged up once every, say, three months (along with arguments over RfA standards) and as yet we haven't really done anything very firm about it, except change the name of what seems to me to be a universally hated procedure.
I think we should try to think of either how to fix AfD if it is really as bad as we think, or if it is totally beyond repair replace it with something better. Kim Bruning and I were discussing "pure wiki" forms of deletion some time ago, which involved page blanking, and Kim authored a series of experimental deletion procedures (which I tried out for a few articles) at [[Wikipedia:Experimental deletion]]. Personally I am not so sure this is a great deal better, but it's a start. If anyone can come up with a better process, please do add it to the page.
To those taking issue with AfD deletions - forgive me for being an arsehole, but {{sofixit}}. I think that rather than arguing over the way that AfD operates, we should work towards fixing or replacing it, using these cases where users have taken exception to AfDs as feedback for the current process. Otherwise, we'll just be having this same argument in three months time or so, in a sort of "Groundhog Day" scenario. :-) And we all know how unproductive arguments can be on Wikipedia.
Best regards,
-- Nick, [[User:NicholasTurnbull]]
Actually I don't think it can be fixed. I am convinced that it could be safely wound down provided a procedure for dealing with hoax/unverifiable articles was instituted along the same lines as Wikipedia:Copyright_Problems.
Or we could leave it as it is. It's only processing an average of 112 articles a day (based on a recent 3-month survey) and only around 70-80% of those are deleted. This is piddling compared to our site growth figures and utterly dwarfed by the immensity of the existing database. So it's no more effective at whatever it is people think it's for than if we had a script to randomly delete 100 smallish articles with low edit counts every day
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Actually I don't think it can be fixed. I am convinced that it could be safely wound down provided a procedure for dealing with hoax/unverifiable articles was instituted along the same lines as Wikipedia:Copyright_Problems.
Or we could leave it as it is. It's only processing an average of 112 articles a day (based on a recent 3-month survey) and only around 70-80% of those are deleted. This is piddling compared to our site growth figures and utterly dwarfed by the immensity of the existing database. So it's no more effective at whatever it is people think it's for than if we had a script to randomly delete 100 smallish articles with low edit counts every day
And we come full circle... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RANDEL
On 9/30/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Actually I don't think it can be fixed. I am convinced that it could be safely wound down provided a procedure for dealing with hoax/unverifiable articles was instituted along the same lines as Wikipedia:Copyright_Problems.
Sorry I thought people wanted a system which worked. WP:CP is improveing but it still has a long way to go.
-- geni
On 9/30/05, Nicholas Turnbull nicholas.turnbull@gmail.com wrote:
There definitely seems to be this ongoing argument over the way AfD is handled, or whether or not it is being correct or accurate in its judgements for articles to be deleted. This seems to get dredged up once every, say, three months (along with arguments over RfA standards) and as yet we haven't really done anything very firm about it, except change the name of what seems to me to be a universally hated procedure.
Deletion is a big issue. There is the big devide between deletionists and inclusionsts. Whatever arena you chose to have the fights in there are going to be problems. At least AFD keeps it fairly contained. You don't ever have to go near the place.
To those taking issue with AfD deletions - forgive me for being an arsehole, but {{sofixit}}. I think that rather than arguing over the way that AfD operates, we should work towards fixing or replacing it, using these cases where users have taken exception to AfDs as feedback for the current process. Otherwise, we'll just be having this same argument in three months time or so, in a sort of "Groundhog Day" scenario. :-) And we all know how unproductive arguments can be on Wikipedia.
Best regards,
-- Nick, [[User:NicholasTurnbull]]
Arguments about AFD that will go nowhere I can live with since it doesn't require any new policy and doesn't have any impact on those who wish to avoid the debate.
-- geni