It would be great that, instead of deleting an article, the usual deleters would be given a 'flag as source-less/needs improvement' where it would go to a Wikipedia section of poor articles, where people who know would improve them. And, no article, in whatever section, could be deleted unless there's a general consensus.
-- Alvaro
On 13-01-2009, at 5:22, Noah Salzman noah@salzman.net wrote:
On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:10 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so reader wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are "acceptable" in the mainstream, but they would be present for people already in-world to read and edit.
Makes sense to me. If the "articles for deletion" process is usurped by the "articles for purgatory" process then it transforms the debate entirely. If you keep losing at chess than change the game to checkers, rather than continuing to complain about losing at chess.
Deletion could remain a standard process but with much clearer and stricter guidelines. Perhaps, it could be changed to "innocent until proven guilty" as opposed to the deletion process now where the defendant has to do a ton of busy work to save a "guilt-assumed" article.
As someone somewhat removed from the politics of the project, my main question is what does the step-by-step process look like for making this change happen? I imagine there is more than one path: grass roots consensus building vs lobbying The Powers That Be?
My apologies if that is an amusingly naive way of putting it.
--Noah--
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yeah, but that won't work. It needs at least an exception for speedy deletion. Slowly I'm starting to notice im heading more in the direction of hardcore inclusionists, on grounds off [[WP:HARMLESS]] and [[WP:USEFULL]], and stop seeing the use of notability guidelines. That said, even if only 1 in 5 AfD deletions represent true consensus, then that would still amount to about 6 discussions for which we require full community consensus a day, and I just think and hope our community would like to have some time left to write articles instead of making decissions on deleting articles.
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Alvaro García alvareo@gmail.com wrote:
It would be great that, instead of deleting an article, the usual deleters would be given a 'flag as source-less/needs improvement' where it would go to a Wikipedia section of poor articles, where people who know would improve them. And, no article, in whatever section, could be deleted unless there's a general consensus.
-- Alvaro
On 13-01-2009, at 5:22, Noah Salzman noah@salzman.net wrote:
On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:10 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so reader wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are "acceptable" in the mainstream, but they would be present for people already in-world to read and edit.
Makes sense to me. If the "articles for deletion" process is usurped by the "articles for purgatory" process then it transforms the debate entirely. If you keep losing at chess than change the game to checkers, rather than continuing to complain about losing at chess.
Deletion could remain a standard process but with much clearer and stricter guidelines. Perhaps, it could be changed to "innocent until proven guilty" as opposed to the deletion process now where the defendant has to do a ton of busy work to save a "guilt-assumed" article.
As someone somewhat removed from the politics of the project, my main question is what does the step-by-step process look like for making this change happen? I imagine there is more than one path: grass roots consensus building vs lobbying The Powers That Be?
My apologies if that is an amusingly naive way of putting it.
--Noah--
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oh yes, you're right.
Speedy deletion would be required on some case.
-- Alvaro
On 13-01-2009, at 14:18, "Martijn Hoekstra" martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, but that won't work. It needs at least an exception for speedy deletion. Slowly I'm starting to notice im heading more in the direction of hardcore inclusionists, on grounds off [[WP:HARMLESS]] and [[WP:USEFULL]], and stop seeing the use of notability guidelines. That said, even if only 1 in 5 AfD deletions represent true consensus, then that would still amount to about 6 discussions for which we require full community consensus a day, and I just think and hope our community would like to have some time left to write articles instead of making decissions on deleting articles.
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Alvaro García alvareo@gmail.com w rote:
It would be great that, instead of deleting an article, the usual deleters would be given a 'flag as source-less/needs improvement' where it would go to a Wikipedia section of poor articles, where people who know would improve them. And, no article, in whatever section, could be deleted unless there's a general consensus.
-- Alvaro
On 13-01-2009, at 5:22, Noah Salzman noah@salzman.net wrote:
On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:10 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so reader wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are "acceptable" in the mainstream, but they would be present for people already in-world to read and edit.
Makes sense to me. If the "articles for deletion" process is usurped by the "articles for purgatory" process then it transforms the debate entirely. If you keep losing at chess than change the game to checkers, rather than continuing to complain about losing at chess.
Deletion could remain a standard process but with much clearer and stricter guidelines. Perhaps, it could be changed to "innocent until proven guilty" as opposed to the deletion process now where the defendant has to do a ton of busy work to save a "guilt-assumed" article.
As someone somewhat removed from the politics of the project, my main question is what does the step-by-step process look like for making this change happen? I imagine there is more than one path: grass roots consensus building vs lobbying The Powers That Be?
My apologies if that is an amusingly naive way of putting it.
--Noah--
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l