From: Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com Inclusionists and Deletionists are playing what they think is a zero-sum game. It's WORSE than that: the mere presence of their mindless ranting is actually HURTING Wikipedia. By arguing over what should be kept/deleted, we lose information. We lose readers. We lose editors.
The solution:
Become more encylopedia-like.
For just about every value of X, where the number of total X is sufficiently large, we can make more logical and more comprehensive articles by MERGING the bits of information we have (which on their own, are perma-stubs) into more comprehensive articles on the topic.
In doing so, we play a BETTER than zero-sum game. We build articles that a "traditional" encyclopedia would be jealous of. We HELP Wikipedia by having articles that both retain information and look professional.
I'd like to call attention to some remarks by Encephalon. I hesitate to do this because of the context that they're in, and I hope he/she will work them up into a standalone essay, but nevertheless. Take a look in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ Lingnan_Primary_School
near the bottom, the portion that begins:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That is the very first thing you read under Key Policies (WP:RULES), the main page of the essential rules that govern this encyclopedia. It is the very first thing that you read in the fundamental five pillars (WP:5P). The fundamental requirements of encyclopedia writing are enshrined in the basic, fundamental tenets of its policies. WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV are each and all fundamental rules that we may not ignore as we please...
...and the subsequent discussion, and this _very interesting_ comment:
"I am using the criteria all of us should use: the principles central to writing encyclopedic articles on WP. Pages which violate those policies should be removed, whether they've been on WP for 3 weeks or 3 years, whether they pertain to the United States or to sub-Saharan Africa. Likewise, pages that are written in accordance with such principles should be kept, no matter how obscure or unknown to WPns at large."
-- Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith@verizon.net "Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print! Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
Perhaps that's true, but there seems to be a general disagreement when something is verifiable, original research or NPOV to begin with. I consider a minor band that doesn't pass WP:MUSIC as vanity which is essentially a sort of POV that says, I'm important enough for an encyclopedia even though I haven't released any singles or albums yet. Others claim, as noted, that they're verifiable, non-original research and NPOV because the article doesn't promote them. I think the mere fact of putting something on a high-profile site as Wikipedia could be seen as an attempt of promotion. -
On 10/1/05, Daniel P. B. Smith dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
From: Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com Inclusionists and Deletionists are playing what they think is a zero-sum game. It's WORSE than that: the mere presence of their mindless ranting is actually HURTING Wikipedia. By arguing over what should be kept/deleted, we lose information. We lose readers. We lose editors.
The solution:
Become more encylopedia-like.
For just about every value of X, where the number of total X is sufficiently large, we can make more logical and more comprehensive articles by MERGING the bits of information we have (which on their own, are perma-stubs) into more comprehensive articles on the topic.
In doing so, we play a BETTER than zero-sum game. We build articles that a "traditional" encyclopedia would be jealous of. We HELP Wikipedia by having articles that both retain information and look professional.
I'd like to call attention to some remarks by Encephalon. I hesitate to do this because of the context that they're in, and I hope he/she will work them up into a standalone essay, but nevertheless. Take a look in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ Lingnan_Primary_School
near the bottom, the portion that begins:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That is the very first thing you read under Key Policies (WP:RULES), the main page of the essential rules that govern this encyclopedia. It is the very first thing that you read in the fundamental five pillars (WP:5P). The fundamental requirements of encyclopedia writing are enshrined in the basic, fundamental tenets of its policies. WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV are each and all fundamental rules that we may not ignore as we please...
...and the subsequent discussion, and this _very interesting_ comment:
"I am using the criteria all of us should use: the principles central to writing encyclopedic articles on WP. Pages which violate those policies should be removed, whether they've been on WP for 3 weeks or 3 years, whether they pertain to the United States or to sub-Saharan Africa. Likewise, pages that are written in accordance with such principles should be kept, no matter how obscure or unknown to WPns at large."
-- Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith@verizon.net "Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print! Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Perhaps that's true, but there seems to be a general disagreement when something is verifiable, original research or NPOV to begin with. I consider a minor band that doesn't pass WP:MUSIC as vanity which is essentially a sort of POV that says, I'm important enough for an encyclopedia even though I haven't released any singles or albums yet. Others claim, as noted, that they're verifiable, non-original research and NPOV because the article doesn't promote them. I think the mere fact of putting something on a high-profile site as Wikipedia could be seen as an attempt of promotion. -
I would have thought that WP:MUSIC was a breakdown of how WP:NOR works wrt. musical groups...
Of course, writing an article about your own band kinda breaks NPOV anyway, doesn't it? Well, NPOV is always available from Carlos behind the 7-11 :)
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
From: Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com Inclusionists and Deletionists are playing what they think is a zero-sum game. It's WORSE than that: the mere presence of their mindless ranting is actually HURTING Wikipedia. By arguing over what should be kept/deleted, we lose information. We lose readers. We lose editors.
The solution:
Become more encylopedia-like.
I'd like to call attention to some remarks by Encephalon. I hesitate to do this because of the context that they're in, and I hope he/she will work them up into a standalone essay, but nevertheless. Take a look in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lingnan_Primary...
near the bottom, the portion that begins:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That is the very first thing you read under Key Policies (WP:RULES), the main page of the essential rules that govern this encyclopedia. It is the very first thing that you read in the fundamental five pillars (WP:5P). The fundamental requirements of encyclopedia writing are enshrined in the basic, fundamental tenets of its policies. WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV are each and all fundamental rules that we may not ignore as we please...
...and the subsequent discussion, and this _very interesting_ comment:
"I am using the criteria all of us should use: the principles central to writing encyclopedic articles on WP. Pages which violate those policies should be removed, whether they've been on WP for 3 weeks or 3 years, whether they pertain to the United States or to sub-Saharan Africa. Likewise, pages that are written in accordance with such principles should be kept, no matter how obscure or unknown to WPns at large."
The article in question is clearly a stub. The deletion debate about it is clearly not. One can only wonder what a great article we would have about the Lingam School if the energy spent trying to delete it had actually been wasted on trying to improve it. :-)
My first impression of the last quoted paragraph is that it's tautological. Then by being referenced there it confuses standards with the application of standards. The time and place references in the paragraph are redundant since the princilples would be equally applicable without them. The paragraph could be summarized in, "If it's a good page keep it; if it's a bad page delete it." Who would argue against that?
The underlying assumption is that the article proposed for deletion is a bad one, and since everybody knows that it's guilty why bother with a trial?" Let's proceed directly to the execution. I'm sorry but the rest of us are not so brilliant as to understand this swift logic, we still need to be shown why it's a bad unencyclopedic article.
Ec
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
<snip>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lingnan_Primary...
near the bottom, the portion that begins:
<snip>
...and the subsequent discussion, and this _very interesting_ comment:
"I am using the criteria all of us should use: the principles central to writing encyclopedic articles on WP. Pages which violate those policies should be removed, whether they've been on WP for 3 weeks or 3 years, whether they pertain to the United States or to sub-Saharan Africa. Likewise, pages that are written in accordance with such principles should be kept, no matter how obscure or unknown to WPns at large."
<snip>
My first impression of the last quoted paragraph is that it's tautological. Then by being referenced there it confuses standards with the application of standards. The time and place references in the paragraph are redundant since the princilples would be equally applicable without them. The paragraph could be summarized in, "If it's a good page keep it; if it's a bad page delete it." Who would argue against that?
Well, it's not that far from what I've been saying. If the article contains useful information that could be merged into a better article, merge it. If the article could be transwikied to solve problems with WP:NOR or WP:NOT, transwiki it. If the article is a copyvio or CSD, delete it. Other than that, if it's informative, neutral, contains references, and is suitable for any other encyclopedia, keep it.
The underlying assumption is that the article proposed for deletion is a bad one, and since everybody knows that it's guilty why bother with a trial?" Let's proceed directly to the execution. I'm sorry but the rest of us are not so brilliant as to understand this swift logic, we still need to be shown why it's a bad unencyclopedic article.
Well, it's because it's listed at a page called "Articles for Deletion", isn't it!
Time to rename AfD. AGAIN.
When it was called "Votes for Deletion", people thought it was some kind of contest. Editcountitis crept into it and people would vote for the sake of voting. Extreme Article Deletion crept into it too. People would say "Damn! Pokemon is in! Better get rid of schools, bands, roads and all those Rambot stubs to make up for it! Double bonus points for deleting whole countries nobody's heard of!"
The question is: What is The Bit of Wikipedia Formerly Known as AfD designed to do? Is it to get articles that you don't like deleted? Or is it to seperate the chaff from the grain?
Hrm.... "Wikipedia:Article Threshing". I like it :)
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
The question is: What is The Bit of Wikipedia Formerly Known as AfD designed to do? Is it to get articles that you don't like deleted? Or is it to seperate the chaff from the grain?
It's to give an air of legitimacy to the deletion of articles which a large portion of Wikipedia don't feel should be deleted. Don't like that X was deleted? You should have voted to keep it. Don't have time to vote keep on hundreds of articles a month even though you think they should be kept? Tough luck. You do have time to vote on hundreds of articles a month? Then expect to be banned from voting just like I was. Don't even bother asking for a reconsideration. No, a mighty quorum of 7 out of the 450,000 Wikipedians have spoken, and 5 out of those 7 wanted it deleted. That's right, 5 out of 450,000 - a consensus!
Anthony
On 10/2/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
The question is: What is The Bit of Wikipedia Formerly Known as AfD designed to do? Is it to get articles that you don't like deleted? Or is it to seperate the chaff from the grain?
It's to give an air of legitimacy to the deletion of articles which a large portion of Wikipedia don't feel should be deleted. Don't like that X was deleted? You should have voted to keep it. Don't have time to vote keep on hundreds of articles a month even though you think they should be kept? Tough luck. You do have time to vote on hundreds of articles a month? Then expect to be banned from voting just like I was. Don't even bother asking for a reconsideration. No, a mighty quorum of 7 out of the 450,000 Wikipedians have spoken, and 5 out of those 7 wanted it deleted. That's right, 5 out of 450,000 - a consensus!
This is exactly why I'd like Wikipedia's deletion and featured article functions to act less as a shredder and a limelight, and more like a fractional distillation tower.
If we have three "levels" of Wikipedia, we can have a whole lot more middle ground for the deletionists and inclusionists to meet on.
Top level is featured articles and any articles rated to be best in class; on par with or better than commercial encyclopedias. Fully referenced, cited, and illustrated as appropriate for the topic; these articles take a keen eye to find room for improvement. These also would be ready-made for any published edition of Wikipedia on CD, DVD, or paper.
Middle level is Wikipedia's general section; this is where our main body of work resides. A decent paragraph or two sized article, or a bit of notabilty is needed to rise to this level.
Bottom level is stubs, works in process, and all other articles that aren't "approved" by consensus to rise to middle or top level, but aren't speedy-deletable either. Requirements to be kept here do not include notability, but must be verifiable and NPOV.
Users browsing the encyclopedia can set a default level of viewing on arrival, but bottom level articles are, by default, not included.
If necessary, there could be additional levels, especially at the top, but I think three would be enough. -- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
On 10/2/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Time to rename AfD. AGAIN.
...
The question is: What is The Bit of Wikipedia Formerly Known as AfD designed to do? Is it to get articles that you don't like deleted? Or is it to seperate the chaff from the grain?
Perhaps we can just come up with some kind of strange symbol for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Princesymbol.png
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
Alphax wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
The underlying assumption is that the article proposed for deletion is a bad one, and since everybody knows that it's guilty why bother with a trial?" Let's proceed directly to the execution. I'm sorry but the rest of us are not so brilliant as to understand this swift logic, we still need to be shown why it's a bad unencyclopedic article.
Well, it's because it's listed at a page called "Articles for Deletion", isn't it!
Time to rename AfD. AGAIN.
When it was called "Votes for Deletion", people thought it was some kind of contest. Editcountitis crept into it and people would vote for the sake of voting. Extreme Article Deletion crept into it too. People would say "Damn! Pokemon is in! Better get rid of schools, bands, roads and all those Rambot stubs to make up for it! Double bonus points for deleting whole countries nobody's heard of!"
The question is: What is The Bit of Wikipedia Formerly Known as AfD designed to do? Is it to get articles that you don't like deleted? Or is it to seperate the chaff from the grain?
Hrm.... "Wikipedia:Article Threshing". I like it :)
I don't think that changing the tiger's stripes is going to make it any less vicious.
What could be useful would be to leave all deletion votes open indefinitely. Even if the current trend is to delete with the relevant threshhold being met, additional opinions could lead to an automatic reversal of the deletion without having to go through a whole separate undeletion process. There could still be a difference in the margins to prevent a rapid series of deletions and undeletions. Thus if deletion requires 90% support, it could be undeleted automatically if the deletion support falls below 80%.
How did the deletion period get reduced from 7 to 5 days. That seems far too short, especially considering that many other deletions still require 7 days. A _minimum_ of a week seems most appropriate. If Little Johnny's mother only allows him a limited amount of time on the computer after Sunday dinner when he has proven to her that his homework is done. Little Johnny, who is an A student with no homework problems and a conscientious Wikipedian, will not have had the opportunity to defend his efforts from deletionist attacks.
The other recommendation that I would make is that any substantive change to an article after it has been nominated for deletion would reset the clock for the deletion timetable. Perhaps all "votes" made prior to that change should be declared void, allowing those voters to cast a new vote.
Ec
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Alphax wrote:
<snip>
The question is: What is The Bit of Wikipedia Formerly Known as AfD designed to do? Is it to get articles that you don't like deleted? Or is it to seperate the chaff from the grain?
Hrm.... "Wikipedia:Article Threshing". I like it :)
I don't think that changing the tiger's stripes is going to make it any less vicious.
But if you take the stripes off the tiger, does the tiger forget that it is a tiger, and stop trying to eat people? Do not blame God for having made the tiger; rather, thank Him for having not given it wings.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 10/3/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
How did the deletion period get reduced from 7 to 5 days. That seems far too short, especially considering that many other deletions still require 7 days. A _minimum_ of a week seems most appropriate.
An interesting observation. Actually I had no idea that it was ever longer. I wonder if it was reduced as the old double-transclusion version of VfD became unwieldy. If so, in theory it could be changed back, or even doubled.
But in practice the maximum lag time for an article (days between nomination and deletion) is eight days at the moment, and it has been much longer at times.
And from closing debates, my experience is that articles that don't get much attention in the first day or two aren't likely to get more over the current five day period. But if neglected listings (say four people or fewer in five days of discussion) are then relisted they tend to get more attention. So extending lag time would probably have minimal benefit and other methods of improving exposure are available and are fairly commonly used.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 10/3/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
How did the deletion period get reduced from 7 to 5 days. That seems far too short, especially considering that many other deletions still require 7 days. A _minimum_ of a week seems most appropriate.
An interesting observation. Actually I had no idea that it was ever longer. I wonder if it was reduced as the old double-transclusion version of VfD became unwieldy. If so, in theory it could be changed back, or even doubled.
But in practice the maximum lag time for an article (days between nomination and deletion) is eight days at the moment, and it has been much longer at times.
And from closing debates, my experience is that articles that don't get much attention in the first day or two aren't likely to get more over the current five day period. But if neglected listings (say four people or fewer in five days of discussion) are then relisted they tend to get more attention. So extending lag time would probably have minimal benefit and other methods of improving exposure are available and are fairly commonly used.
The rules governing this process are a complete maze to work through, to the point where very little of it means anything anymore. At [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy]], under the heading "Lag times" all other types of deletion (except speedy) are shown as having seven or eight days lag times.. The ichange was under discussion between May and July. See [[Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/lag time]]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion/lag_timeAt the rate that changes take place there it could have been snuck in at any time without it being noticed.
Your observation of what happens makes sense. Something that is not noticed when it appears on RFC will get a free ride into deletion whether or not it has any value.
So I've enterred a debate on [[Open Season (2006 movie)]] which User:Fvw and User:Android79 insist on speedy deleting without any discussion. The former went so far as to delete the talk page to suppress discussion. When these newbies get a little power as admins it goes to their head.
I got involved when someone wrongly added it to Wiktionary and I moved it here with a few improvements.. In any event I know of no policy to delete short articles on movies in production as long as they are verifiable, which this is. This is obviously the kind of article that will grow with time.
Ec
Your observation of what happens makes sense. Something that is not noticed when it appears on RFC will get a free ride into deletion whether or not it has any value. So I've enterred a debate on [[Open Season (2006 movie)]] which User:Fvw and User:Android79 insist on speedy deleting without any discussion. The former went so far as to delete the talk page to suppress discussion. When these newbies get a little power as admins it goes to their head.
Uh, Fvw has been here a year longer then even tony sidaway according to kate....
Thanks, Ryan
[[User:RN]] at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RN Ryan Norton at wxforum: http://wxforum.org
On 10/3/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I don't think that changing the tiger's stripes is going to make it any less vicious.
What could be useful would be to leave all deletion votes open indefinitely. Even if the current trend is to delete with the relevant threshhold being met, additional opinions could lead to an automatic reversal of the deletion without having to go through a whole separate undeletion process. There could still be a difference in the margins to prevent a rapid series of deletions and undeletions. Thus if deletion requires 90% support, it could be undeleted automatically if the deletion support falls below 80%.
So you want detetion arguments to carry on forever? You know I quite like the way we don't have to perminatly police a GNAA AFD.
The other recommendation that I would make is that any substantive change to an article after it has been nominated for deletion would reset the clock for the deletion timetable. Perhaps all "votes" made prior to that change should be declared void, allowing those voters to cast a new vote.
Ec
Person produces hoax. Listed on vfd. After 4 days they change the hoax. Repeat untill we get fed up. Also look for arguments over the defintion of substantive.
-- geni
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
geni wrote:
On 10/3/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
<snip>
The other recommendation that I would make is that any substantive change to an article after it has been nominated for deletion would reset the clock for the deletion timetable. Perhaps all "votes" made prior to that change should be declared void, allowing those voters to cast a new vote.
Ec
Person produces hoax. Listed on vfd. After 4 days they change the hoax. Repeat untill we get fed up. Also look for arguments over the defintion of substantive.
So speedy it and ban the user(s)/IP(s) who keep adding it.
(Another one to add to the blocking policy: Users who add Total Bullshit /WILL/ be banned, no questions asked.)
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 10/4/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
So speedy it and ban the user(s)/IP(s) who keep adding it.
Can't remeber it would not even have been through AFD once.
(Another one to add to the blocking policy: Users who add Total Bullshit /WILL/ be banned, no questions asked.)
Could be a honest mistake.
-- geni
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
geni wrote:
On 10/4/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
So speedy it and ban the user(s)/IP(s) who keep adding it.
Can't remeber it would not even have been through AFD once.
What about the undelete history?
(Another one to add to the blocking policy: Users who add Total Bullshit /WILL/ be banned, no questions asked.)
Could be a honest mistake.
Well, make it clear on the edit page. Or make stronger warning messages.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 10/4/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
geni wrote:
On 10/4/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
So speedy it and ban the user(s)/IP(s) who keep adding it.
Can't remeber it would not even have been through AFD once.
What about the undelete history?
Can't see how to fit that in with policy.
-- geni