I noticed this too. But I tend to assume that these messages are like health warnings on cigarette packets: they become more extreme, because the moderate versions are ignored by the people they are really aimed at.
We may need to audit deletions. I'm becoming uneasy about the quick paths. But a great deal of discretionary deletion does need to happen.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 28/11/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
We may need to audit deletions. I'm becoming uneasy about the quick paths. But a great deal of discretionary deletion does need to happen.
Are there still people keeping an eye on speedies?
(The idea being: speedy patrollers are dealing with a firehose of crap, and being human will make mistakes - and that's fine. Then the speedy patrol patrollers check the speedies and undelete the erroneous speedies - and that's fine too.)
- d.
That wording seems to change from day to day. I'm not sure where the discussion about its wording is held. For a while it insisted on copyright violations. Sometimes it mentions nonsense, sometimes it does. Sometimes it says "may be deleted", other times it's "will".
We have similar messages when you attempt to create a new article, when you save one, at WP:AFC and probably numerous other places. We should really standardise this stuff.
Steve
On 11/28/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/11/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
We may need to audit deletions. I'm becoming uneasy about the quick paths.
But a great deal of discretionary deletion does need to happen.
Are there still people keeping an eye on speedies?
(The idea being: speedy patrollers are dealing with a firehose of crap, and being human will make mistakes - and that's fine. Then the speedy patrol patrollers check the speedies and undelete the erroneous speedies - and that's fine too.)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/28/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
That wording seems to change from day to day. I'm not sure where the discussion about its wording is held. For a while it insisted on copyright violations. Sometimes it mentions nonsense, sometimes it does. Sometimes it says "may be deleted", other times it's "will".
It's in [[MediaWiki:Newarticletext]]. There may be some discussion on the talk page there.
I see no reason why we should be flexible about sources. If it hasn't got sources it can be deleted, regardless whether this is a policy or a guideline. It may be kept if someone bothers to find the sources the author should have included, but that might not happen.
The only way to make people use sources is hammering it in, because no matter how many times it is said, people will ignore it. Perhaps deletion will get some backsides into gear.
Mgm
On 11/28/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/28/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
That wording seems to change from day to day. I'm not sure where the discussion about its wording is held. For a while it insisted on copyright violations. Sometimes it mentions nonsense, sometimes it does. Sometimes it says "may be deleted", other times it's "will".
It's in [[MediaWiki:Newarticletext]]. There may be some discussion on the talk page there.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 28/11/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I see no reason why we should be flexible about sources. If it hasn't got sources it can be deleted, regardless whether this is a policy or a guideline. It may be kept if someone bothers to find the sources the author should have included, but that might not happen. The only way to make people use sources is hammering it in, because no matter how many times it is said, people will ignore it. Perhaps deletion will get some backsides into gear.
One of the big problems with [[WP:RS]] is that it's grossly defective and being applied robotically and inappropriately.
- d.
On 11/29/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/11/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I see no reason why we should be flexible about sources. If it hasn't got sources it can be deleted, regardless whether this is a policy or a guideline. It may be kept if someone bothers to find the sources the author should have included, but that might not happen. The only way to make people use sources is hammering it in, because no matter how many times it is said, people will ignore it. Perhaps deletion will get some backsides into gear.
One of the big problems with [[WP:RS]] is that it's grossly defective and being applied robotically and inappropriately.
Sure, and that's a reason to question whether a page that's so disputed/unstable should be linked to from a major part of the interface. But I think his point was something in the interface saying that completely unsourced articles are likely to be deleted is prudent, since everyone agrees that having no sources at all is bad.
Stephen Bain wrote:
Sure, and that's a reason to question whether a page that's so disputed/unstable should be linked to from a major part of the interface. But I think his point was something in the interface saying that completely unsourced articles are likely to be deleted is prudent, since everyone agrees that having no sources at all is bad.
Everyone agrees that having no sources is, as a whole, bad. Not everyone agrees that wholesale deletion is the answer, however. It would be awfully nice if, instead of changing the culture to remove large swaths of articles, we worked on changing the culture to actually, you know, collaborate on getting sources. God forbid we build an encyclopedia, after all.
And before I get three million replies - yes, it's the responsibility of the person adding the information/advocating the retention of the information to acquire the source. I don't disagree with that initial responsibility at all, but I do think that we're too quick to say "oh, well, user couldn't be bothered with sourcing, and neither can I." It's ultimately everyone's responsibility.
-Jeff
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:02:07 -0600 (CST), "Jeff Raymond" jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Everyone agrees that having no sources is, as a whole, bad. Not everyone agrees that wholesale deletion is the answer, however. It would be awfully nice if, instead of changing the culture to remove large swaths of articles, we worked on changing the culture to actually, you know, collaborate on getting sources.
In most of the cases flagged for speedy deletion, though, that would be a titanic waste of time and effort. Most of them have already consumed more community time than they deserve simply through the effort of tagging for deletion. I think the aggregate work that goes into deleting a day's CSD workload almost certainly exceeds the work that goes into creating it.
What I would like to see is the ability of a good-faith editor to place an AfD on hold for five days while it is fixed. Unsourced articles need to go; those which can be sourced need to be sourced and kept. If some sources genuinely can be found then there is absolutely no problem waiting for that, and then weighing up whether that makes the article a keeper. The problem, of course, is preventing abuse by the POV-pushers and other assorted ne'er-do-wells who seem to think that a Wikipedia article on their company, band or New Great Thing is a God-given right. Prod should (should) be kind of like this, in that a prod tag can be removed if an article is fixed up.
Trouble is, we are so weighed down with absolute junk that some good ones are inevitably going to be swept up with the crap. That's why I wanted you to have the sysop bit, so you could check deleted histories and maybe help to rescue some of the better ones. You can always ask me for a history undeletion for a review, of course. As long as it's not a reality show contestant, of course... ;-)
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:02:07 -0600 (CST), "Jeff Raymond" jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Everyone agrees that having no sources is, as a whole, bad. Not everyone agrees that wholesale deletion is the answer, however. It would be awfully nice if, instead of changing the culture to remove large swaths of articles, we worked on changing the culture to actually, you know, collaborate on getting sources.
In most of the cases flagged for speedy deletion, though, that would be a titanic waste of time and effort.
There is no criterion for speedy deletion related to the absence of references. Any article listed for speedy deletion on that basis should simply be delisted.
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:04:16 -0700, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
There is no criterion for speedy deletion related to the absence of references. Any article listed for speedy deletion on that basis should simply be delisted.
Indeed. Absence of any claim to validity is what is at issue, and the absence of any sources is one of the diagnostic factors. very few sourced articles are flagged for A7.
Guy (JzG)
A7? God, I hate jargon.
On 11/29/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:04:16 -0700, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
There is no criterion for speedy deletion related to the absence of references. Any article listed for speedy deletion on that basis should simply be delisted.
Indeed. Absence of any claim to validity is what is at issue, and the absence of any sources is one of the diagnostic factors. very few sourced articles are flagged for A7.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:04:16 -0700, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
There is no criterion for speedy deletion related to the absence of references. Any article listed for speedy deletion on that basis should simply be delisted.
Indeed. Absence of any claim to validity is what is at issue, and the absence of any sources is one of the diagnostic factors. very few sourced articles are flagged for A7.
But even then it's still not not a remotely _reliable_ diagnostic factor. For example, if there were an article whose text consisted of:
"Marty McFoo was a German actor who won several national awards for his portrayal of Julius Caesar on TV."
This article would be completely unreferenced, but nevertheless it asserts the subject's notability just fine. It is therefore not speedyable. If you're considering whether to speedy-delete something on the basis of whether it contains an assertion of notability why not simply look for whether there's an _assertion of notability_? It should be easy to spot.
On 11/30/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
This article would be completely unreferenced, but nevertheless it asserts the subject's notability just fine. It is therefore not speedyable. If you're considering whether to speedy-delete something on the basis of whether it contains an assertion of notability why not simply look for whether there's an _assertion of notability_? It should be easy to spot.
Yes, I don't get why people seemingly have trouble with this. Even an implicit assertion of notability is fine: "Barry is one of the main characters on Neighbours." - if Neighbours looks notable, then Barry is presumably notable.
(whether a separate article about each character is appropriate is a separate issue)
Steve
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:04:27 -0700, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Indeed. Absence of any claim to validity is what is at issue, and the absence of any sources is one of the diagnostic factors. very few sourced articles are flagged for A7.
But even then it's still not not a remotely _reliable_ diagnostic factor. For example, if there were an article whose text consisted of: "Marty McFoo was a German actor who won several national awards for his portrayal of Julius Caesar on TV." This article would be completely unreferenced, but nevertheless it asserts the subject's notability just fine.
This is arse about face though. Marty McFoo is an actor who has played in some things[reliable source] which have been popular[reliable source] is unlikely to be tagged, whereas with no reliable sources it might well be (we have any number of deletion candidates which make vague unsubstantiated assertions, after all).
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:04:27 -0700, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
But even then it's still not not a remotely _reliable_ diagnostic factor. For example, if there were an article whose text consisted of: "Marty McFoo was a German actor who won several national awards for his portrayal of Julius Caesar on TV." This article would be completely unreferenced, but nevertheless it asserts the subject's notability just fine.
This is arse about face though. Marty McFoo is an actor who has played in some things[reliable source] which have been popular[reliable source] is unlikely to be tagged, whereas with no reliable sources it might well be (we have any number of deletion candidates which make vague unsubstantiated assertions, after all).
If it's tagged for speedy deletion then it's tagged incorrectly and the tag should simply be removed. This is my basic point, which still stands; speedy deletion is not applicable to articles that simply lack sources. If I take the article you describe and make those [reliable source] bits vanish that doesn't change the actual assertion of notability one whit.
If you think the assertion of notability is false or otherwise not sufficient to warrant keeping the article, that's what PROD and AfD are for. Not speedy deletion.
On 01/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:04:27 -0700, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Indeed. Absence of any claim to validity is what is at issue, and the absence of any sources is one of the diagnostic factors. very few sourced articles are flagged for A7.
But even then it's still not not a remotely _reliable_ diagnostic factor. For example, if there were an article whose text consisted of: "Marty McFoo was a German actor who won several national awards for his portrayal of Julius Caesar on TV." This article would be completely unreferenced, but nevertheless it asserts the subject's notability just fine.
This is arse about face though. Marty McFoo is an actor who has played in some things[reliable source] which have been popular[reliable source] is unlikely to be tagged, whereas with no reliable sources it might well be (we have any number of deletion candidates which make vague unsubstantiated assertions, after all).
Of course we now get so far into wiki-lawyering that we have to explicitly say that things are "popular" enough to get into the "popularity" based wikipedia.
Peter Ansell
On 12/1/06, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
Of course we now get so far into wiki-lawyering that we have to explicitly say that things are "popular" enough to get into the "popularity" based wikipedia.
A cameo appearance on the Simpsons is possibly notable. A cameo appearance on a low-budget short-lived TV show that aired three times on a local TV show in Kazakstan is not. The popularity of the show is fundamental to the notability you gain from having appeared on it. Wikilawyering or not.
Steve
On 12/4/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
A cameo appearance on the Simpsons is possibly notable. A cameo appearance on a low-budget short-lived TV show that aired three times on a local TV show in Kazakstan is not. The popularity of the show is
...local TV station rather.
Steve
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:41:41 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
One of the big problems with [[WP:RS]] is that it's grossly defective and being applied robotically and inappropriately.
At the risk of being flippant, {{sofixit}}. We have WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:NOR - we absolutely must have a decent, working definition of what defines a source, so that we can apply these. If the current definition is terrible, it needs to be improved, not ignored.
My view here is that it is the authority of the source that matters, not the medium. But that does require that we legislate Clue, to a certain extent.
Guy (JzG)
On 11/29/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I see no reason why we should be flexible about sources. If it hasn't got sources it can be deleted, regardless whether this is a policy or a guideline. It may be kept if someone bothers to find the sources the author should have included, but that might not happen.
The only way to make people use sources is hammering it in, because no matter how many times it is said, people will ignore it. Perhaps deletion will get some backsides into gear.
If we come up with a workable policy, people might follow it. Our policies basically state the undesirable and infeasible goal of "every statement must be backed up by a reliable, verifiable source". What we actually *want* is far less than that though. Something like:
* Any statement that if false would be harmful, must be traceable to a source. * Any statement that could never be backed up by a reliable source should not be included. * Where possible, provide sources to help readers determine the accuracy of statements.
The corollaries of these three rules are that non-trivial, non-harmful statements don't *have* to be cited, but *should* be. This is what most people *do*, but is not what our policies *say*.
Anyone agree?
Steve
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:39:22 +1100, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
- Any statement that if false would be harmful, must be traceable to a source.
- Any statement that could never be backed up by a reliable source
should not be included.
- Where possible, provide sources to help readers determine the
accuracy of statements.
The corollaries of these three rules are that non-trivial, non-harmful statements don't *have* to be cited, but *should* be. This is what most people *do*, but is not what our policies *say*.
Anyone agree?
Of course. The problem, though, is those who write what they see as self-evidently true, but which is not self-evident to others. Or maybe is considered flat wrong by others.
Guy (JzG)
You know, it's not that damn critical to have people include sources when they add something to Wikipedia. In my experience, 99% of the time a quick google finds a source for info (that isn't just obvious opinion).
It's not that big a deal.
On 11/28/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I see no reason why we should be flexible about sources. If it hasn't got sources it can be deleted, regardless whether this is a policy or a guideline. It may be kept if someone bothers to find the sources the author should have included, but that might not happen.
The only way to make people use sources is hammering it in, because no matter how many times it is said, people will ignore it. Perhaps deletion will get some backsides into gear.
Mgm
On 11/28/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/28/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
That wording seems to change from day to day. I'm not sure where the discussion about its wording is held. For a while it insisted on copyright violations. Sometimes it mentions nonsense, sometimes it does. Sometimes it says "may be deleted", other times it's "will".
It's in [[MediaWiki:Newarticletext]]. There may be some discussion on the talk page there.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com _______________________________________________ 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
Steve Bennett wrote:
That wording seems to change from day to day. I'm not sure where the discussion about its wording is held. For a while it insisted on copyright violations. Sometimes it mentions nonsense, sometimes it does. Sometimes it says "may be deleted", other times it's "will".
Does it have one of those {{#option}} and {{#random}} thingies in it?
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 10:36:39 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
(The idea being: speedy patrollers are dealing with a firehose of crap, and being human will make mistakes - and that's fine. Then the speedy patrol patrollers check the speedies and undelete the erroneous speedies - and that's fine too.)
Just so. I think I untag maybe a quarter of speedies I come to when I visit the category, of which some are userfied as userpages created in mainspace by mistake (FSVO mistake); some are taken to AfD as problematic but not unambiguous; and some I fix in some way.
Having said which, I bet it's less than a quarter if I reviewed it dispassionately. I am a bit of a deletionist. I tried to get an inclusionist sysopped, to balance out all us heartless deletionists, but was slapped down.
Guy (JzG)
On 11/28/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
I noticed this too. But I tend to assume that these messages are like health warnings on cigarette packets: they become more extreme, because the moderate versions are ignored by the people they are really aimed at.
We may need to audit deletions. I'm becoming uneasy about the quick paths. But a great deal of discretionary deletion does need to happen.
Charles
What about were a systematic effort to remove sources is underway? As in this article
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Coe&diff=next&oldid=...
same occurred again
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Coe&diff=39262981&ol...
Charles added the needs sources Template months later
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Coe&diff=next&oldid=...
Does anyone look at the histories before nominating for deletion? I could cite a couple of dozen similiar examples.
Nobs01
On 28/11/06, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
What about were a systematic effort to remove sources is underway? As in this article
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Coe&diff=next&oldid=...
How... entirely irrelevant.
Because, when you look at the *other* edits made at the same time...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Coe&diff=34387074&ol...
...you find that the material to which the source referred was taken out, and the editor simply took six edits to do it all. Leaving the source in, if the information to which it refers is gone, would be, er, somewhat pointless and misleading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Coe&diff=39262981&ol...
...the same situation again.
On 11/28/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/11/06, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
What about were a systematic effort to remove sources is underway?
How... entirely irrelevant.
Because, when you look at the *other* edits made at the same time...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Coe&diff=34387074&ol...
...you find that the material to which the source referred was taken out...
Um, that's the point. When a source, which fits all the definitions of "reliable" is systmeatically purged from an article (Library of Congress Manuscripts Division I'm assuming to be "reliable").
Nobs01
On Nov 28, 2006, at 10:32 AM, Rob Smith wrote:
What about were a systematic effort to remove sources is underway? As in this article
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Frank_Coe&diff=next&oldid=34386640
same occurred again
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Frank_Coe&diff=39262981&oldid=39262903
Charles added the needs sources Template months later
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Frank_Coe&diff=next&oldid=44966881
Does anyone look at the histories before nominating for deletion? I could cite a couple of dozen similiar examples.
Nobs01
Not just one acorn....
Fred
On 11/28/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
On Nov 28, 2006, at 10:32 AM, Rob Smith wrote:
What about were a systematic effort to remove sources is underway? As in this article
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Frank_Coe&diff=next&oldid=34386640
same occurred again
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Frank_Coe&diff=39262981&oldid=39262903
Charles added the needs sources Template months later
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Frank_Coe&diff=next&oldid=44966881
Does anyone look at the histories before nominating for deletion? I could cite a couple of dozen similiar examples.
Nobs01
Not just one acorn....
Fred
As Phil Gramm said, "I flunked the third, the seventh and the ninth grade"; you really have to spell out what you mean....
nobs01
On Nov 28, 2006, at 1:57 PM, Rob Smith wrote:
Not just one acorn....
Fred
As Phil Gramm said, "I flunked the third, the seventh and the ninth grade"; you really have to spell out what you mean....
nobs01
For a subtle guy like you....
Fred