While I agree with much of David Gerard's reasoning, I am unconvinced that a one-month hiatus would provide any greater or more meaningful space for discussion of an alternative than would business-as-usual at AfD.
I do believe that it would lead to a rash of speedy deletions that lack sufficient policy basis.
I continue to believe that any discussion of process issues at AfD will go nowhere until there is greater agreement on what articles we want to keep and what articles we want to delete. The process discussions are all polarized by the winners and losers they would create in the inclusionism vs. deletionism spectrum.
The Uninvited Co., Inc.
uninvited@nerstrand.net (uninvited@nerstrand.net) [050913 08:17]:
While I agree with much of David Gerard's reasoning, I am unconvinced that a one-month hiatus would provide any greater or more meaningful space for discussion of an alternative than would business-as-usual at AfD.
You're right. Make it three.
(We won't run out of disk space.)
- d.
Why is this a good idea? You're going to give Ed ideas. Again.
On 9/12/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
uninvited@nerstrand.net (uninvited@nerstrand.net) [050913 08:17]:
While I agree with much of David Gerard's reasoning, I am unconvinced that a one-month hiatus would provide any greater or more meaningful space for discussion of an alternative than would business-as-usual at AfD.
You're right. Make it three.
(We won't run out of disk space.)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Gerard wrote:
uninvited@nerstrand.net (uninvited@nerstrand.net) [050913 08:17]:
While I agree with much of David Gerard's reasoning, I am unconvinced that a one-month hiatus would provide any greater or more meaningful space for discussion of an alternative than would business-as-usual at AfD.
You're right. Make it three.
(We won't run out of disk space.)
I think this would be an interesting experiment. Instead of deletionist and inclusionist camps throwing around anecdotes, you get a sizeable body of candidates to study, plus it encourages people to think about the process that they want to follow when the period ends and they have a whole pile of articles they want to process efficiently. We'll discover, how often borderline articles gets improved into good ones when left alone, or get made into redirs to existing articles. Some articles might be unfairly speedied, but if they're being tracked from a protected list, I think admins will leave the marginals to accumulate rather than risk being sanctioned for deleting worthwhile material out of hand.
Stan
I think this would be an interesting experiment. Instead of deletionist and inclusionist camps throwing around anecdotes, you get a sizeable body of candidates to study, plus it encourages people to think about the process that they want to follow when the period ends and they have a whole pile of articles they want to process efficiently.
The inclusionist camp could of course just obstruct everything.
We'll discover, how often borderline articles gets improved into good ones when left alone, or get made into redirs to existing articles. Some articles might be unfairly speedied, but if they're being tracked from a protected list, I think admins will leave the marginals to accumulate rather than risk being sanctioned for deleting worthwhile material out of hand.
What risk? Admins on RC patrol will be able to delete stuff before anyone else has time to react and digging thourgh the deletion log when you don't have admin powers is imposible and when you do it is insanely boring.
geni wrote:
I think this would be an interesting experiment. Instead of deletionist and inclusionist camps throwing around anecdotes, you get a sizeable body of candidates to study, plus it encourages people to think about the process that they want to follow when the period ends and they have a whole pile of articles they want to process efficiently.
The inclusionist camp could of course just obstruct everything.
And the deletionists camp could of course just speedy-delete everything.
Or, both camps could assume good faith and relax a bit, each not thinking that the "other guys" are a bunch of deranged encyclopedia-haters who want to destroy everything in an orgy of deletion and/or garage band stubs. :) A lot of people are currently disagreeing over what sorts of articles merit inclusion in Wikipedia, but it's not like most of those people think Wikipedia's going to go down in flames if the "wrong" standards are picked. At least, they shouldn't. Wikipedia is more resistant than that.
What risk? Admins on RC patrol will be able to delete stuff before anyone else has time to react and digging thourgh the deletion log when you don't have admin powers is imposible and when you do it is insanely boring.
Are there no inclusionist admins who would go on "deletion log patrol" if such a thing became common? Would you worry about a corresponding problem of unchecked undeletion?
As one possible alternative, the "pure wiki deletion" method of simply blanking pages would make it a lot easier to double-check and revert by non-admins.
Or, both camps could assume good faith and relax a bit, each not thinking that the "other guys" are a bunch of deranged encyclopedia-haters who want to destroy everything in an orgy of deletion and/or garage band stubs. :) A lot of people are currently disagreeing over what sorts of articles merit inclusion in Wikipedia, but it's not like most of those people think Wikipedia's going to go down in flames if the "wrong" standards are picked. At least, they shouldn't. Wikipedia is more resistant than that.
Well ten out of ten for bring posertive. People have been kicking the idea of deleteion refome for a while. it hasn't happened becuase we haven't yet completely exausted the option of doing nothing. untill that time happens of it's own accord rather than trying to force it there is very little chance indeed of getting a consensus.
Are there no inclusionist admins who would go on "deletion log patrol" if such a thing became common?
have you any idea how dull that would be? it's not like there is a shortage of other boring admin tasks.
Would you worry about a corresponding problem of unchecked undeletion?
not really since it is much less common so it would be a lot less effort to cheack. Pluss everyone can see when something is undeleted.
As one possible alternative, the "pure wiki deletion" method of simply blanking pages would make it a lot easier to double-check and revert by non-admins.
See WP:CP for why that isn't even legal.
geni wrote:
As one possible alternative, the "pure wiki deletion" method of simply blanking pages would make it a lot easier to double-check and revert by non-admins.
See WP:CP for why that isn't even legal.
We're discussing an alternative to VfD/AfD. Copyright problems is a completely different matter, handled by a different process. I don't see the relevance or connection between the two.
On 9/14/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
geni wrote:
As one possible alternative, the "pure wiki deletion" method of simply blanking pages would make it a lot easier to double-check and revert by non-admins.
See WP:CP for why that isn't even legal.
We're discussing an alternative to VfD/AfD. Copyright problems is a completely different matter, handled by a different process. I don't see the relevance or connection between the two.
...And WP:CP could still take use of the admin deletion features...
On 9/14/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/14/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
geni wrote:
As one possible alternative, the "pure wiki deletion" method of simply blanking pages would make it a lot easier to double-check and revert by non-admins.
See WP:CP for why that isn't even legal.
We're discussing an alternative to VfD/AfD. Copyright problems is a completely different matter, handled by a different process. I don't see the relevance or connection between the two.
...And WP:CP could still take use of the admin deletion features...
not if you are aiming for PWD.
geni wrote:
On 9/14/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/14/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
We're discussing an alternative to VfD/AfD. Copyright problems is a
completely different matter, handled by a different process. I don't see the relevance or connection between the two.
...And WP:CP could still take use of the admin deletion features...
not if you are aiming for PWD.
He just said that he's not, at least when it comes to dealing with copyright problems. You're the only one I've seen in this thread who's suggesting that PWD would be used that way. Why can't VfD and CP use different ways of deleting pages?
On 9/14/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
geni wrote:
On 9/14/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/14/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
We're discussing an alternative to VfD/AfD. Copyright problems is a
completely different matter, handled by a different process. I don't see the relevance or connection between the two.
...And WP:CP could still take use of the admin deletion features...
not if you are aiming for PWD.
He just said that he's not, at least when it comes to dealing with copyright problems. You're the only one I've seen in this thread who's suggesting that PWD would be used that way. Why can't VfD and CP use different ways of deleting pages? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Because accuseing something of being a copyvio will become a lot more common rather than being a tectic of last resort.
On 9/14/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/14/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
geni wrote:
...And WP:CP could still take use of the admin deletion features...
not if you are aiming for PWD.
He just said that he's not, at least when it comes to dealing with copyright problems. You're the only one I've seen in this thread who's suggesting that PWD would be used that way. Why can't VfD and CP use different ways of deleting pages?
Because accuseing something of being a copyvio will become a lot more common rather than being a tectic of last resort.
We don't just delete copyvios because they're accused of it. We tend to delete them when they're properly accused of it, tagged (with a link of where it's from), rot on [[WP:CP]] for a month or so, and if it's really a copyvio (or just nobody figures out it isn't..), it's deleted. With PWD being used for regular deletions, theoretically we could have more admins to work on [[WP:CP]].
As for the delete warring, there's no reason an admin couldn't come around, protect the page, and use {{deletedpage}}, like we already do when people try to repeatedly re-create deleted materials, or protect it on an undeleted version, like we already do when people vandalize articles heavily.
Phroziac wrote:
As for the delete warring, there's no reason an admin couldn't come around, protect the page, and use {{deletedpage}}, like we already do when people try to repeatedly re-create deleted materials, or protect it on an undeleted version, like we already do when people vandalize articles heavily.
So instead of the supposed consensus on VFD, which in reality at least lets all people have a say, we have one admin (in theory all admins) deciding whether an article is "notable" enough to be protected as deleted or not. I fail to see how this is an improvement. As an inclusionist, PWDS sounds somewhat appealing until we get to cases like this. Though I guess I could get it from the history and "merge" it with an existing somewhat-related article until the protection is removed.
geni wrote:
On 9/14/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
He just said that he's not, at least when it comes to dealing with copyright problems. You're the only one I've seen in this thread who's suggesting that PWD would be used that way. Why can't VfD and CP use different ways of deleting pages?
Because accuseing something of being a copyvio will become a lot more common rather than being a tectic of last resort.
I'm unable to follow the logic here. Why does this follow? And why would it make a difference, since non-copyvios would be rejected by the CP process anyway? If a page is a copyvio then it _should_ go on CP, if it's not a copyvio then it shouldn't. The means used to remove the articles don't matter.
I'm not sure what you mean by "tactic of last resort", either. Do you mean that people who are dead-set on deleting an article will try accusing it of being a copyvio if a VfD fails to remove it, even if it's not? That's bad behavior, again regardless of the means used to remove the articles.
I'm unable to follow the logic here. Why does this follow? And why would it make a difference, since non-copyvios would be rejected by the CP process anyway? If a page is a copyvio then it _should_ go on CP, if it's not a copyvio then it shouldn't. The means used to remove the articles don't matter.
I'm not sure what you mean by "tactic of last resort", either. Do you mean that people who are dead-set on deleting an article will try accusing it of being a copyvio if a VfD fails to remove it, even if it's not? That's bad behavior, again regardless of the means used to remove the articles.
It has been known. It will happen again.
On 9/14/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I'm unable to follow the logic here. Why does this follow? And why would it make a difference, since non-copyvios would be rejected by the CP process anyway? If a page is a copyvio then it _should_ go on CP, if it's not a copyvio then it shouldn't. The means used to remove the articles don't matter.
I'm not sure what you mean by "tactic of last resort", either. Do you mean that people who are dead-set on deleting an article will try accusing it of being a copyvio if a VfD fails to remove it, even if it's not? That's bad behavior, again regardless of the means used to remove the articles.
It has been known. It will happen again.
Is it just me, or are you looking for any excuse to use against the system?
On 9/14/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
geni wrote:
As one possible alternative, the "pure wiki deletion" method of simply blanking pages would make it a lot easier to double-check and revert by non-admins.
See WP:CP for why that isn't even legal.
We're discussing an alternative to VfD/AfD. Copyright problems is a completely different matter, handled by a different process. I don't see the relevance or connection between the two.
Really? you don't see how PWD would affect something that has to do with deletion?
geni wrote:
On 9/14/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
geni wrote:
See WP:CP for why that isn't even legal.
We're discussing an alternative to VfD/AfD. Copyright problems is a completely different matter, handled by a different process. I don't see the relevance or connection between the two.
Really? you don't see how PWD would affect something that has to do with deletion?
If PWD was being proposed as a way of dealing with copyright violations, then yes, of course there would be a major problem there.
But it's _not_ being proposed. We don't have to use the same approach to deletion in every single circumstance where things "need to be removed from Wikipedia". PWD is being proposed as an alternative to the administrative deletion that's currently being used by the VfD/AfD process. I haven't proposed using it to deal with copyright violations, and as far as I'm aware nobody else has either (until you did just now, that is). Have you seen a proposal along those lines that I've missed?
"geni" geniice@gmail.com wrote in message news:f8060843050912185312a86a1c@mail.gmail.com...
The inclusionist camp could of course just obstruct everything.
...and later:
What risk? Admins on RC patrol will be able to delete stuff before anyone else has time to react and digging thourgh the deletion log when you don't have admin powers is imposible and when you do it is insanely boring.
Not quite managing to see just which of these you are more worried about...
On 9/13/05, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
"geni" geniice@gmail.com wrote in message news:f8060843050912185312a86a1c@mail.gmail.com...
The inclusionist camp could of course just obstruct everything.
...and later:
What risk? Admins on RC patrol will be able to delete stuff before anyone else has time to react and digging thourgh the deletion log when you don't have admin powers is imposible and when you do it is insanely boring.
Not quite managing to see just which of these you are more worried about...
Phil [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
On balance the second one becuase I can't quite tell where it would end up. Of course in the first would be a major factactor in causeing the second that doesn't mean much.