Jimbo wrote:
I absolutely do think that acquisition of huge numbers of additional stubs on increasingly narrow topics ought not to be a priority, and certainly ought not to be allowed to get in the way of quality improvement on existing articles. (At the same time, of course, it's worth pointing out that there's an easy mental trap to fall into... assuming that time people are spending working on obscure fancruft could in any way be diverted into increasing the quality of other articles. That's probably not true.)
That's absolutely and incredibly not true. They write a verifiable article about something they know, get abusive comments on AFD (for some reason, civility and assume good faith don't work there ... the reason AFD is so damn poisonous to the community is that it blatantly encourages participants to assume *bad* faith) and *leave*.
They're volunteers, not employees. They will write about what they want to write about, not what someone else wants them to write about. You can drive them away very easily (does anyone on AFD actually want to do this? I'd hope not), but I would say this is not a good thing.
- d.
On 11/14/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Jimbo wrote:
That's absolutely and incredibly not true. They write a verifiable article about something they know, get abusive comments on AFD (for some reason, civility and assume good faith don't work there ... the reason AFD is so damn poisonous to the community is that it blatantly encourages participants to assume *bad* faith) and *leave*.
That would be unusal. More likely they will simply be ignored. Most stuff that lands on afd is not implicetly verifiable.
-- geni
On 11/14/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Most stuff that lands on afd is not implicetly verifiable.
Oh I dunno. Looking at (randomly chosen recent day log) November 8, we have the following entries:
Verifiable: 50-cent word, A. Y. Jackson Secondary School, Abdul Samad Maharuddin, Alan lennon, AMUST Registry cleaner, Andkon, Anphillia, Anvert, Appalachian State University Student Government Association, Arcanime, Archos Gmini XS202
Unverifiable: A. Willis Abraham, Aadam Nasir, Afskum, Apples, Guns and Greed, Archipel
I stopped after this, but I think you'll see my point. Lots of entries on AfD are verifiable.
Incidentally I find one or two of the deletion nominations somewhat disturbing. The "Archos Gmini XS202" nomination was accompanied by the statement "I've never heard of this mp3 player" The only problem with the article was some unencyclopedic language. The Alan lennon entry was apparently deleted merely because the performer has no entry on Allmusic.com, but this Kilkenny musician has played on a Kim Fowley album and recorded his own well received 2003 album and achieved endorsements by several musical instrument companies.
Unless we're adopting an extremely exclusionist approach to Wikipedia entries, such articles don't really belong on AfD at all. They seem to be a symptom of simple laziness on the part of the nominators.
Tony Sidaway wrote: <snip>
Unless we're adopting an extremely exclusionist approach to Wikipedia entries, such articles don't really belong on AfD at all. They seem to be a symptom of simple laziness on the part of the nominators.
Yeah, it's all these damn kids who think that if they've never heard of something, it can't be important, but OH NOES! DON"T DELETE MY HIGH SCHOOL! :-P
"Alphax (Wikipedia email)" alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote in message news:43798F2F.50707@gmail.com...
Tony Sidaway wrote:
<snip> > Unless we're adopting an extremely exclusionist approach to Wikipedia > entries, such articles don't really belong on AfD at all. They seem > to be a symptom of simple laziness on the part of the nominators. Yeah, it's all these damn kids who think that if they've never heard of something, it can't be important, but OH NOES! DON"T DELETE MY HIGH SCHOOL! :-P
I'm having difficulty discerning whether you're being ironic here, but yes...that is basically what is happening.
Articles are being nominated purely on the basis of "nn = I never heard of it" and heaven help the poor sod who attempts to interrupt the process because the nominator might not have checked carefully enough.
Phil Boswell wrote:
"Alphax (Wikipedia email)" alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote in message news:43798F2F.50707@gmail.com...
Tony Sidaway wrote:
<snip>
Unless we're adopting an extremely exclusionist approach to Wikipedia entries, such articles don't really belong on AfD at all. They seem to be a symptom of simple laziness on the part of the nominators.
Yeah, it's all these damn kids who think that if they've never heard of something, it can't be important, but OH NOES! DON"T DELETE MY HIGH SCHOOL! :-P
I'm having difficulty discerning whether you're being ironic here, but yes...that is basically what is happening.
Disclaimer: I acknowledge that there are *some* valuable teenage contributors to Wikipedia.
*dons asbestos pants*
We should kick all the kids off and block all schools indefinately. They're one of our greatest sources of vandalism and they are STUPID ANNOYING LITTLE KIDS. Who gives a stuff what they think. If they want to write "kiddipedia" let them, but this is a SERIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA.
Oh yes, we can delete all the Pokecruft and Pottercruft while we're at it.
Articles are being nominated purely on the basis of "nn = I never heard of it" and heaven help the poor sod who attempts to interrupt the process because the nominator might not have checked carefully enough.
Any nomination of something for deletion by someone who isn't a subject expert should be an automatic speedy keep on the basis that they don't know what the hell they're on about.
On 11/16/05, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Disclaimer: I acknowledge that there are *some* valuable teenage contributors to Wikipedia.
*dons asbestos pants*
We should kick all the kids off and block all schools indefinately. They're one of our greatest sources of vandalism and they are STUPID ANNOYING LITTLE KIDS. Who gives a stuff what they think. If they want to write "kiddipedia" let them, but this is a SERIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA.
Disclaimer: I am a (valuable?) teenage contributor to Wikipedia.
I understand your point about vandals, but a far greater problem for Wikipedia is trolling. Very few trolls are teenagers.
We are a net good!
Sam
Sam Korn wrote:
On 11/16/05, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Disclaimer: I acknowledge that there are *some* valuable teenage contributors to Wikipedia.
*dons asbestos pants*
We should kick all the kids off and block all schools indefinately. They're one of our greatest sources of vandalism and they are STUPID ANNOYING LITTLE KIDS. Who gives a stuff what they think. If they want to write "kiddipedia" let them, but this is a SERIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA.
Disclaimer: I am a (valuable?) teenage contributor to Wikipedia.
I understand your point about vandals, but a far greater problem for Wikipedia is trolling. Very few trolls are teenagers.
We are a net good!
With all due respect, most teenagers don't have a clue. (Not many adults do either, but rangeblocking AOL will partially solve that problem.)
Oh yes, I forgot to mention: helpdesk-l gives a wonderful breakdown of the sorts of people who are visiting our site, and (potentially) who is mirroring us.
On 11/16/05, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
With all due respect, most teenagers don't have a clue. (Not many adults do either, but rangeblocking AOL will partially solve that problem.)
I find clueless users a lot easier to deal with than malicious ones.
I'm not sure this conversation is really a worthwhile use of my time...
Sam
On 11/15/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/14/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Most stuff that lands on afd is not implicetly verifiable.
Oh I dunno. Looking at (randomly chosen recent day log) November 8, we have the following entries:
Verifiable: 50-cent word, A. Y. Jackson Secondary School, Abdul Samad Maharuddin, Alan lennon, AMUST Registry cleaner, Andkon, Anphillia, Anvert, Appalachian State University Student Government Association, Arcanime, Archos Gmini XS202
Unverifiable: A. Willis Abraham, Aadam Nasir, Afskum, Apples, Guns and Greed, Archipel
I stopped after this, but I think you'll see my point. Lots of entries on AfD are verifiable.
Incidentally I find one or two of the deletion nominations somewhat disturbing. The "Archos Gmini XS202" nomination was accompanied by the statement "I've never heard of this mp3 player" The only problem with the article was some unencyclopedic language. The Alan lennon entry was apparently deleted merely because the performer has no entry on Allmusic.com, but this Kilkenny musician has played on a Kim Fowley album and recorded his own well received 2003 album and achieved endorsements by several musical instrument companies.
Unless we're adopting an extremely exclusionist approach to Wikipedia entries, such articles don't really belong on AfD at all. They seem to be a symptom of simple laziness on the part of the nominators. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Born Febuary 8th, 1977 in Dublin Ireland, Alan Lennon is an instrumental guitarist. Playing since the age of 16 and after attending the Ballyfermot Rock College in Dublin, Alan Lennon released his first ablum, "Heaven's Call" in 2003. With the musical styles of Jason Becker and Shawn Lane, while completely maintaining his own, Alan Lennon creates vast amounts of energy and emotion in his first album.
Currently Alan Lennon is in the studio working on his next album.
Alan Lennon's website
Neither the article, nor the AFD discussion stated much of the reasoning you followed for this to be kept (only that the album existed). If no one speaks up about things like this, how are we supposed to know it's keepable. Not because it was referenced, that's for sure...
--Mgm
It's been said before and I'll say it again. Just because it's verifiable doesn't mean it deserves an entry.
Anyone visiting my website would be able to write a very verifiable article about it, but the fact remains that it receives very little visitors and simply doesn't warrant an entry in an encyclopedia.
Now, Alexa may be somewhat biased to a certain group of American users but that doesn't mean it's entirely useless in determining traffic, especially in combination with Google hits and mentions in press and webzines and activity on a webcomics forum. If most or all of those criteria are lacking, it's just another website one of the approximately 4,000,000,000 on the net.
We can't have an article on all of them, just because they are verifiable.
And even if something warrants inclusion, it doesn't mean a 2 sentence stub on a character needs its own article. Merge it into a parent article and provide it with loads more context.
--Mgm
On 11/16/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
It's been said before and I'll say it again. Just because it's verifiable doesn't mean it deserves an entry.
Anyone visiting my website would be able to write a very verifiable article about it, but the fact remains that it receives very little visitors and simply doesn't warrant an entry in an encyclopedia.
But if it is independantly verifiable, which is the criterion I always apply, then if likely *does* deserve an entry, or at least is entitled to one.
Sam
David Gerard wrote:
That's absolutely and incredibly not true. They write a verifiable article about something they know, get abusive comments on AFD (for some reason, civility and assume good faith don't work there ... the reason AFD is so damn poisonous to the community is that it blatantly encourages participants to assume *bad* faith) and *leave*.
They're volunteers, not employees. They will write about what they want to write about, not what someone else wants them to write about. You can drive them away very easily (does anyone on AFD actually want to do this? I'd hope not), but I would say this is not a good thing.
That poisonous atmosphere is perhaps the most damaging thing that is currently happening on Wikipedia. Those who are spreading that poison appear completely oblivious to the effect that they are having on the social fabric.
Ec
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
David Gerard wrote:
<snip> >the >reason AFD is so damn poisonous to the community is that it blatantly >encourages participants to assume *bad* faith) and *leave*. ><snip>
That poisonous atmosphere is perhaps the most damaging thing that is currently happening on Wikipedia. Those who are spreading that poison appear completely oblivious to the effect that they are having on the social fabric.
I will simply re-iterate that there are far more seriously damaging and "poisonous" things happening on Wikipedia, and they are related to extremely weak dispute resolution mechanisms.
Jay.