editorial oversight, re: afd, fac, etc.

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Assuming consensus

Re: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

Christopher Thieme

12 Jan 2007 12 Jan '07

8:27 p.m.

...

Message: 10 Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:19:31 -0500 From: "James Hare" <messedrocker(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] (no subject) To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Message-ID: <43348cda0701120919k15954458g636078210a2adede(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed I suggested something on another thread that stated that only people with background in a certain field should be qualified to judge notability. Chemists determine chemical notability, Finns determine notability of Finnish folk, the list goes on. Perhaps it's time to give AFD a good ol' reworking to separate the opinions of people who are qualified to speak about the subject's notability and outsider's opinions (both are

important,

...

but we can't put the fingers of clueless people on the red button). Hopefully, through this, closing AFDs will be based less on vote counting and more on evaluating the opinions of people.

I'd have to agree with James on this one. This could also be a boon for FA and GA promotions. It would diminish the tendancy for voting at AFD, FAC, etc. to look like a division of "i don't like it" and the "i like it" camps. Several months ago, an AFD came up for "Amafanius", an early Roman Epicurean philosopher whose works, while unfortunately lost to the ages, were discussed at length in the works of Cicero (who trashed Amafanius with glee), and in Michel de Montaigne. Because of their referencing, the philosophical offerings of Amafanius can actually be reconstructed...but only in broad strokes. As someone who studied classics at Rutgers and am well-versed in this area, I recognized that he was notable and should have a place here at Wikipedia. Thankfully, because a few others were just as well-versed, we were able to save the article. But, unfortunately, as it typical around here, a large number of users who obvious appeared to be the tech-saavy, internet-raised Pokemon-crowd for whom nothing exists before, say, 20 years ago, voted for "Delete". One of the failings, one that probably contributes to some of the negative reputation Wikipedia has earned, is that it does not have any expert oversight. Perhaps some sort of prominent, scholarly, editorial advisory board would be in order? Even if loosely bureaucratic, it would add a little more weight to the credibility of the encyclopedia that would be a worthwhile step in counteracting an image diminished by our pop-culture heaviness (pokemon, star trek, etc.) and "anyone can edit (read: vandalise/insert false information)" repuation. Regards, Christopher D. Thieme User:ExplorerCDT

Show replies by date

Jeff Raymond

12 Jan 12 Jan

8:57 p.m.

Christopher Thieme wrote:

...

One of the failings, one that probably contributes to some of the negative reputation Wikipedia has earned, is that it does not have any expert oversight. Perhaps some sort of prominent, scholarly, editorial advisory board would be in order? Even if loosely bureaucratic, it would add a little more weight to the credibility of the encyclopedia that would be a worthwhile step in counteracting an image diminished by our pop-culture heaviness (pokemon, star trek, etc.) and "anyone can edit (read: vandalise/insert false information)" repuation.

Here's the problem, though - even with those, you're still going to get people who see a philosopher like what you said and bring it up for deletion, even if it's well-sourced. Really, a board doesn't need to be in order as much as an escape from "notability" as a criteria at all, instead focusing on other rationales for inclusion. I don't know if there's a perfect system, in any regard. People ignore the "notability" criteria as is, and not having any criteria in place will certainly eliminate otherwise necessary/good/great/featured articles due to their overall lack of significant rememberance. Perhaps Fred's idea has some merit as well, but I'm not sure there's a good way to assure that the articles we should have stay, and the articles we shouldn't get deleted. -Jeff

Kirill Lokshin

9:11 p.m.

On 1/12/07, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

important,

but we can't put the fingers of clueless people on the red button). Hopefully, through this, closing AFDs will be based less on vote counting and more on evaluating the opinions of people.

I suppose now might be a decent time to trot out an old idea: what about giving WikiProjects a greater role in the deletion process? They are already (for the most part) the natural gathering places for people with some interest in a particular topic (and, by association, some degree of knowledge of it); presumably, we could therefore expect that the consensus of participants in a WikiProject would thus be a little more informed on topics within that project's scope than the consensus of randomly selected editors. -- Kirill Lokshin

James Hare

9:15 p.m.

I've suggested that each individual WikiProject establish the notability standards, so naturally I guess they'd be involved in deletion, too. We already have Deletion Sorting, which is a blessing. On 1/12/07, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 1/12/07, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> Message: 10 > Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:19:31 -0500 > From: "James Hare" <messedrocker(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] (no subject) > To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Message-ID: <

43348cda0701120919k15954458g636078210a2adede(a)mail.gmail.com>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > I suggested something on another thread that stated that only people

with

> background in a certain field should be qualified to judge notability. > Chemists determine chemical notability, Finns determine notability of > Finnish folk, the list goes on. Perhaps it's time to give AFD a good

ol'

> reworking to separate the opinions of people who are qualified to

speak

about the subject's notability and outsider's opinions (both are

important, > but we can't put the fingers of clueless people on the red button). > Hopefully, through this, closing AFDs will be based less on vote

counting

and more on evaluating the opinions of people.

I'd have to agree with James on this one. This could also be a boon for

and GA promotions. It would diminish the tendancy for voting at AFD,

FAC,

etc. to look like a division of "i don't like it" and the "i like it"

camps.

Several months ago, an AFD came up for "Amafanius", an early Roman

Epicurean

philosopher whose works, while unfortunately lost to the ages, were discussed at length in the works of Cicero (who trashed Amafanius with glee), and in Michel de Montaigne. Because of their referencing, the philosophical offerings of Amafanius can actually be

reconstructed...but

only in broad strokes. As someone who studied classics at Rutgers and

well-versed in this area, I recognized that he was notable and should

have a

place here at Wikipedia. Thankfully, because a few others were just as well-versed, we were able to save the article. But, unfortunately, as it typical around here, a large number of users

who

obvious appeared to be the tech-saavy, internet-raised Pokemon-crowd for whom nothing exists before, say, 20 years ago, voted for "Delete". One of the failings, one that probably contributes to some of the

negative

reputation Wikipedia has earned, is that it does not have any expert oversight. Perhaps some sort of prominent, scholarly, editorial

advisory

board would be in order? Even if loosely bureaucratic, it would add a little more weight to the credibility of the encyclopedia that would be

worthwhile step in counteracting an image diminished by our pop-culture heaviness (pokemon, star trek, etc.) and "anyone can edit (read: vandalise/insert false information)" repuation. Regards, Christopher D. Thieme User:ExplorerCDT

Ray Saintonge

13 Jan 13 Jan

9:40 a.m.

James Hare wrote:

...

I've suggested that each individual WikiProject establish the notability standards, so naturally I guess they'd be involved in deletion, too. We already have Deletion Sorting, which is a blessing.

It may be a little premature to establish criteria. If the Deletion sorting can be used to alert project member of what debates are on their plate, they can then develop an empirical approach to what they are considering and use that to build policy. Ec

Keitei

12 Jan 12 Jan

10:22 p.m.

On Jan 12, 2007, at 16:11, Kirill Lokshin wrote:

...

I wonder if holding deletion debates within WikiProject space would be a feasible or good idea. The idea would be creating consensus over whether something was notable/verifiable enough among those familiar with the topic, so as to create a more nuanced debate. A time limit would probably be not such a great idea, but once consensus was reached, deletion could be requested. Of course there isn't a WikiProject for every topic, and not every nominator knows where to find relevant WikiProjects. However, this would curb uninformed drive- by votes and make deletion discussions hopefully more debate and less polling. It'd also be a huge reform to deletion process, which is entirely unwanted if I read community feeling correctly. Oh well.

K P

11:01 p.m.

On 1/12/07, Keitei <nihthraefn(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Jan 12, 2007, at 16:11, Kirill Lokshin wrote:

I find the WikiProjects feel they own the articles and don't want to delete anything in their area. This can be problematic also. A couple of times when articles have come up for discussion in areas in which I have a lot of expertise, the other editors agreed with what I suggested by done based on this. The problem, imo, is the number of seriously contentious editors who know nothing about a topic, but want the article deleted because there were few google hits or they didn't understand the article. Google simply isn't the source for everything, especially in the sciences. One concept with few google hits was a major climatic term. Another issue that arrises is that contentious editors want poorly sourced or unreferenced articles deleted for OR rather than tagged requesting it be references properly (Rock climbing being the extreme of that one). One article on a major topic was up for discussion because the editor posting the AfD had never heard of the term. He/she didn't bother to do a Google search and get the 1.2 million hits, apparently. Yes, it seems that there are a lot of editors with limited knowledge who consider that anything they haven't heard of should be deleted. Someone was arguing on a page today/yesterday that because he had never heard of Lech Walesa, Walesa might not be very notable. There are just too many uninformed drive-by votes for me to continue in AfD, though, it's too contentious, the guidelines are ignored, editors make up reasons for deletion, and well-sourced articles on major topics are liable to be deletely simply because a small group of editors have never heard of some obscure world-leader Nobel laureate. KP Botany

Marc Riddell

11:38 p.m.

...

From: "K P" <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 15:01:30 -0800 To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] editorial oversight, re: afd, fac, etc. On 1/12/07, Keitei <nihthraefn(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 12, 2007, at 16:11, Kirill Lokshin wrote:

Don't forget the human factor involved here. When a person finds they actually have a voice in a crowd, they may use it simply to be heard; and to call attention to the fact that they are there. Marc Riddell

...

_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Ray Saintonge

13 Jan 13 Jan

9:48 a.m.

Keitei wrote:

...

On Jan 12, 2007, at 16:11, Kirill Lokshin wrote:

Absolutely

...

A time limit would probably be not such a great idea, but once consensus was reached, deletion could be requested.

I don't know if we can handle that much sanity.

...

Of course there isn't a WikiProject for every topic, and not every nominator knows where to find relevant WikiProjects.

A valid criticism, but couldn't we somehow use categories to do this?

...

However, this would curb uninformed drive- by votes and make deletion discussions hopefully more debate and less polling. It'd also be a huge reform to deletion process, which is entirely unwanted if I read community feeling correctly. Oh well.

That depends on which community you are talking about. Ec

Nina Stratton

2:56 p.m.

On 1/12/07, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

43348cda0701120919k15954458g636078210a2adede(a)mail.gmail.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed I suggested something on another thread that stated that only people

with

background in a certain field should be qualified to judge notability. Chemists determine chemical notability, Finns determine notability of Finnish folk, the list goes on. Perhaps it's time to give AFD a good ol' reworking to separate the opinions of people who are qualified to speak about the subject's notability and outsider's opinions (both are

important,

but we can't put the fingers of clueless people on the red button). Hopefully, through this, closing AFDs will be based less on vote

counting

and more on evaluating the opinions of people.

Try Citizendium. Google it. Go there now. Sincerely, Nina "Look at the sky. We are not alone. The whole universe is friendly to us and conspires only to give the best to those who dream and work." - Abdul Kalam

6328

days inactive

6329

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

9 comments

9 participants

tags (0)

participants (9)

Christopher Thieme
James Hare
Jeff Raymond
K P
Keitei
Kirill Lokshin
Marc Riddell
Nina Stratton
Ray Saintonge