1) As I understand it, the proposed "pure wiki deletion system" doesn't really delete articles, it just sweeps them under the rug.
2) It is more important to me that Wikipedia be an encyclopedia than that it be a wiki. I accept that it isn't a _pure_ encyclopedia. I don't think it should be a _pure_ wiki.
3) What is the evidence that a "pure" wiki system will work better? This seems like ideology to me. Isn't Wikipedia, by most measures, far more successful than any other Wiki or Wiki-like entity in existence? (Are Wikinfo, Everything2, JnanaBase, etc. even a blip on the Internet radar?)
4) Slashdot is a group blog. An encyclopedia is not a group blog.
5) USENET resembles a pure wiki system. Articles can only be deleted ("cancelled") by the person who created them (and as of 2005 virtually all news servers seem to ignore cancellations anyway). It is an inclusionist's dream. It is far larger than Wikipedia and far more comprehensive. It contains a great deal of valuable information and it is very, very useful to me, particular in the decades since the establishment of Deja News/Google Groups. I have the belief, correct or not, that I can judge the reliability of the information I find on it. _I use it all the time for decision making,_ particular decisions about purchasing things. But it is not an encyclopedia.
- USENET resembles a pure wiki system. Articles can only be deleted
("cancelled") by the person who created them (and as of 2005 virtually all news servers seem to ignore cancellations anyway). It is an inclusionist's dream. It is far larger than Wikipedia and far more comprehensive.
And before anyone goes calling him a deletionist. I believe merges and VFU should be used more. Merges to keep info, but not fragmented articles. VFU to undo unjust deletions. Both extreme inclusionism and extreme deletionism have faults that are the root of a lot of ill-feeling between the groups.
(Sorry for the repeat of my view, but it seemed appropriate here).
On 13/09/05, dpbsmith@verizon.net dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
- What is the evidence that a "pure" wiki system will work better?
As far as I know, there is none. Sounds like a good reason to put it live and see what happens :-).
Dan
Merges are good, and i would have less of a problem with afd if we could just merge it while the discussion is on. Certainly, if it's verifiable, sourced, and isn't very long, a merge into something else won't hurt..
On 9/13/05, Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/09/05, dpbsmith@verizon.net dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
- What is the evidence that a "pure" wiki system will work better?
As far as I know, there is none. Sounds like a good reason to put it live and see what happens :-).
Dan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/13/05, Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/09/05, dpbsmith@verizon.net dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
- What is the evidence that a "pure" wiki system will work better?
As far as I know, there is none. Sounds like a good reason to put it live and see what happens :-).
Dan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The problem is, I could blank a lot of articles in [[Category:Cleanup]]
On 9/13/05, Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/09/05, dpbsmith@verizon.net dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
- What is the evidence that a "pure" wiki system will work better?
As far as I know, there is none. Sounds like a good reason to put it live and see what happens :-).
Dan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The problem is, I could blank a lot of articles in [[Wikipedia:Cleanup]], and even if someone noticed, they probably couldn't prove I did it with malice. I was simply "deleting unnecessary articles".
Ral315 wrote:
On 9/13/05, Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/09/05, dpbsmith@verizon.net dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
- What is the evidence that a "pure" wiki system will work
better?
As far as I know, there is none. Sounds like a good reason to put it live and see what happens :-).
Dan
The problem is, I could blank a lot of articles in [[Wikipedia:Cleanup]], and even if someone noticed, they probably couldn't prove I did it with malice. I was simply "deleting unnecessary articles".
I can write a script that will blank any article I edit. Should I put it live as soon as PWDS is approved?
Why would this be any different then what Willy on Wheels would do? Why can't you do it now? And, I suggest you name the script "Billy on Rails".
On 9/13/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Ral315 wrote:
On 9/13/05, Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/09/05, dpbsmith@verizon.net dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
- What is the evidence that a "pure" wiki system will work
better?
As far as I know, there is none. Sounds like a good reason to put it live and see what happens :-).
Dan
The problem is, I could blank a lot of articles in [[Wikipedia:Cleanup]], and even if someone noticed, they probably couldn't prove I did it with malice. I was simply "deleting unnecessary articles".
I can write a script that will blank any article I edit. Should I put it live as soon as PWDS is approved?
-- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Phroziac wrote:
On 9/13/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Ral315 wrote:
The problem is, I could blank a lot of articles in [[Wikipedia:Cleanup]], and even if someone noticed, they probably couldn't prove I did it with malice. I was simply "deleting unnecessary articles".
I can write a script that will blank any article I edit. Should I put it live as soon as PWDS is approved?
Why would this be any different then what Willy on Wheels would do? Why can't you do it now? And, I suggest you name the script "Billy on Rails".
I can do it now, it's just that I value my sanity :) And I've seen a script which *does* auto-move pages (to an extent). If you're lucky I'll tell on #cabal.wikipedia.