On 5/9/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
What concerns me is that we might find some FA candidates in there. Can we think of an algorithm? DGG
There won't be an FA articles in there. Although AfD is for articles that shouldn't be in the encyclopedia, it is used, in general, to try to get poorly written and poorly resourced articles booted out of Wikipedia. FAs have to be well-researched and resourced.
I have to give up on Wikipedia, probably just a break, but maybe for good. I think all of the balance on Wikipedia belongs to the vandals, and none to editors trying to improve Wikipedia or trying to make it what it was intended to be. I find many of the administrators I deal with on Wikipedia to be arbitrary and capricious.
The last straw was an administrator who permanently banned a user for "Simply wearing out everyone's patience" based upon a request by two users who got banned for harrassing this and another user.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&pag... ]
Then, the same administartor, who can block someone just because he/she's having a bad day, decides not to block an account that has done nothing but vandalize Wikipedia [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_inter...], costing Wikipedia an excellent editor (one of the few taxonomists on Wikipedia). Topped off with a brainless reply by another admin who is actively encouraging ticked off editors to leave Wikipedia, and seems to think the whole thing is about the use of the word poop [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AAdministrator_int...]. It's not, it's about the high preference given to vandals over solid contributers by a number of admins with precisely this attitude: if you get irritated at vandals, you're just not tolerant of poop.
It's not this one incident, it's that Wikipedia is biased towards the vandals. All the discussion about whether or not to credential certain users is worthless if Wikipedia has administrators who actively encourage research scientists and qualified technical researchers to leave, so that one child vandal who has done nothing but vandalize Wikipedia accounts, can be encouraged to stay and contribute.
And, please notice, neither of the administrators so gung ho on Curtis and I leaving, ever bothered to take their BS about encouraging folks to contribute positively to the vandal's page to ask him to stay. It's simply empty rhetoric espousing a viewpoint that neither admin even practices, except to encourage scientific knowledge to leave Wikipedia as being less useful than a 7-year-old who has added poopy to 16 articles.
KP
The errors affect pages as well as people. In general yes, AfD and speedy decide rightly, just as do other processes. But 1:100 even ordinary quality articles in there is too many, just as when 1:100 of the people who leave are good people like you--whose edits have been a model for me since I joined. ~~~~
On 5/9/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/9/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
What concerns me is that we might find some FA candidates in there. Can we think of an algorithm? DGG
There won't be an FA articles in there. Although AfD is for articles that shouldn't be in the encyclopedia, it is used, in general, to try to get poorly written and poorly resourced articles booted out of Wikipedia. FAs have to be well-researched and resourced.
I have to give up on Wikipedia, probably just a break, but maybe for good. I think all of the balance on Wikipedia belongs to the vandals, and none to editors trying to improve Wikipedia or trying to make it what it was intended to be. I find many of the administrators I deal with on Wikipedia to be arbitrary and capricious.
The last straw was an administrator who permanently banned a user for "Simply wearing out everyone's patience" based upon a request by two users who got banned for harrassing this and another user.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&pag... ]
Then, the same administartor, who can block someone just because he/she's having a bad day, decides not to block an account that has done nothing but vandalize Wikipedia [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_inter...], costing Wikipedia an excellent editor (one of the few taxonomists on Wikipedia). Topped off with a brainless reply by another admin who is actively encouraging ticked off editors to leave Wikipedia, and seems to think the whole thing is about the use of the word poop [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AAdministrator_int...]. It's not, it's about the high preference given to vandals over solid contributers by a number of admins with precisely this attitude: if you get irritated at vandals, you're just not tolerant of poop.
It's not this one incident, it's that Wikipedia is biased towards the vandals. All the discussion about whether or not to credential certain users is worthless if Wikipedia has administrators who actively encourage research scientists and qualified technical researchers to leave, so that one child vandal who has done nothing but vandalize Wikipedia accounts, can be encouraged to stay and contribute.
And, please notice, neither of the administrators so gung ho on Curtis and I leaving, ever bothered to take their BS about encouraging folks to contribute positively to the vandal's page to ask him to stay. It's simply empty rhetoric espousing a viewpoint that neither admin even practices, except to encourage scientific knowledge to leave Wikipedia as being less useful than a 7-year-old who has added poopy to 16 articles.
KP _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l