On 6 May 2006 at 01:34, "Steve Bennett" stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Speaking for myself, the existence of Pokemon is not directly a problem. But Wikipedia would certainly be better off if somehow all the effort that was expended on Pokemon articles was somehow invested in other ways.
However, the people putting in this effort are unpaid volunteers, who are able to work on what they choose to work on rather than there being any mechanism by which they can be ordered around. This will naturally produce an imbalance in the direction of whatever they happen to want to work on, which might be Pokemon.
I agree with the subject line of this e-mail wholeheartedly.
May I suggest that the best way to prevent vote-stacking would be to stop voting?
(Someone responds here that we need voting for AfD)
I point out that we don't need voting for AfD, which is why we changed it away from VfD, and that the proper way to close an AfD is to look at the arguments and how they adhere to Wikipedia policy, and remembering that if a bunch of people come from off-site to express their belief that an article should be kept, THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY, because Wikipedia is for its readers. That doesn't mean their votes count more, less, or the same as everyone else's, because AfD isn't supposed to be a vote.
Really, AfD votestacking isn't even the most destructive - we've always been pretty good at ignoring meatpuppets if we want to, at times even when we shouldn't. The dangerous votestacking is the "Get all your friends to pile on to an RfC, RfA, or policy debate."
Which is why we should stop voting on those as well.
-Phil
On 5/8/06, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with the subject line of this e-mail wholeheartedly.
May I suggest that the best way to prevent vote-stacking would be to stop voting?
(Someone responds here that we need voting for AfD)
Actually this someone responds that I already suggested this :) So, I agree - replace the vote with reasoned, explicit arguments either way, and have the discussion period closed by someone with half a clue. Not necessarily an admin, but someone somehow designated as being clueful. Then an admin can carry out the delete if needed.
Steve
On 5/8/06, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I point out that we don't need voting for AfD, which is why we changed it away from VfD, and that the proper way to close an AfD is to look at the arguments and how they adhere to Wikipedia policy,
In the last 24 hours I've had to deal with two admins who appear to think that alt accounts were not allowed under policy.
The point of psudo voteing is that it allows people to say yes I view person x's argument as correct. This gives the closer some help in assesing X's argument.
Personaly a prefer to comment on AFDs rather than vote. People tend to be more likely to respond to comments. -- geni
On Mon, 8 May 2006 21:20:11 +0100, you wrote:
In the last 24 hours I've had to deal with two admins who appear to think that alt accounts were not allowed under policy.
For what purpose? Which admins?
Guy (JzG)
On 5/8/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 8 May 2006 21:20:11 +0100, you wrote:
In the last 24 hours I've had to deal with two admins who appear to think that alt accounts were not allowed under policy.
For what purpose? Which admins?
Guy (JzG)
Different reasons. [[User:23skidoo]] and [[User:Tony Sidaway]]. Neither caused any real problems.
-- geni
On Mon, 8 May 2006 23:12:02 +0100, you wrote:
Different reasons. [[User:23skidoo]] and [[User:Tony Sidaway]]. Neither caused any real problems.
I venture to suggest that Tony Sidaway understands more of Wikipedia policy and practice than most of us will ever learn.
Guy (JzG)
On 5/8/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 8 May 2006 23:12:02 +0100, you wrote:
Different reasons. [[User:23skidoo]] and [[User:Tony Sidaway]]. Neither caused any real problems.
I venture to suggest that Tony Sidaway understands more of Wikipedia policy and practice than most of us will ever learn.
Guy (JzG)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_...
To justify the deletion of this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Alternate_Acct
No version of our policy on alt accounts has ever officially deprecated them or any particular method of informing people what they are (I use text).
Understandable. I doubt it is really posible to keep track of every bit of policy these days let alone guidelines.
-- geni
On Mon, 8 May 2006 23:35:01 +0100, you wrote:
I venture to suggest that Tony Sidaway understands more of Wikipedia policy and practice than most of us will ever learn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_... To justify the deletion of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Alternate_Acct No version of our policy on alt accounts has ever officially deprecated them or any particular method of informing people what they are (I use text).
Apart from [[WP:SOCK]], obviously.
Guy (JzG)
On 5/9/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Apart from [[WP:SOCK]], obviously.
Guy (JzG)
Where?
-- geni
On 5/8/06, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I point out that we don't need voting for AfD, which is why we changed it away from VfD, and that the proper way to close an AfD is to look at the arguments and how they adhere to Wikipedia policy...
And here we come to the key problem with the entire model: there _isn't_ an objective policy to deal with these things. (Certainly there are some policies, like verifiability, that can be used; but the lack of consensus for a more comprehensive "notability" policy is the issue.) Once you strip away all the arguments about "notability" and the sea of guidelines and pseudo-guidelines and random acronyms, you get something like:
* Delete, subject is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. * Keep, subject _is_ appropriate for an encyclopedia.
which is about as subjective a standard as you can get. We can certainly appoint someone to judge the relative arguments and decree an outcome, but the question is fundamentally one of differing perceptions of what Wikipedia should strive to be, not one of simply applying existing policy.
Kirill Lokshin
On 5/8/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
- Delete, subject is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.
- Keep, subject _is_ appropriate for an encyclopedia.
which is about as subjective a standard as you can get. We can certainly appoint someone to judge the relative arguments and decree an outcome, but the question is fundamentally one of differing perceptions of what Wikipedia should strive to be, not one of simply applying existing policy.
Perhaps it should be more "subject is not appropriate for *this* encyclopaedia *at this time*". There may come a time when Wikipedia has 40,000,000 articles, including in depth articles on tens of thousands of garage bands. At such a time, it may be appropriate to include them.
Just another thought - could we consider forcing an AfD to be a fact-finding mission about a single question? That is, the nominator asserts that the subject is not notable. The comments should all be about the notability of the subject - if a cogent argument can be made that the subject is notable, then it should be kept. Remarks about verifiability, spelling etc would then be kept out of that discussion.
Steve
On 5/8/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/8/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
- Delete, subject is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.
- Keep, subject _is_ appropriate for an encyclopedia.
which is about as subjective a standard as you can get. We can certainly appoint someone to judge the relative arguments and decree an outcome, but the question is fundamentally one of differing perceptions of what Wikipedia should strive to be, not one of simply applying existing policy.
Perhaps it should be more "subject is not appropriate for *this* encyclopaedia *at this time*". There may come a time when Wikipedia has 40,000,000 articles, including in depth articles on tens of thousands of garage bands. At such a time, it may be appropriate to include them.
Just another thought - could we consider forcing an AfD to be a fact-finding mission about a single question? That is, the nominator asserts that the subject is not notable. The comments should all be about the notability of the subject - if a cogent argument can be made that the subject is notable, then it should be kept. Remarks about verifiability, spelling etc would then be kept out of that discussion.
Steve
Nope. Apart from anything else questions on copyright status are always relivant.
-- geni
On 5/8/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Nope. Apart from anything else questions on copyright status are always relivant.
Don't you usually point out that copyvios don't need to go through AFD? ;-)
Kirill Lokshin
On 5/8/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/8/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Nope. Apart from anything else questions on copyright status are always relivant.
Don't you usually point out that copyvios don't need to go through AFD? ;-)
Kirill Lokshin
However they often have to go through WP:CP which is normaly slower.
-- geni
On 5/8/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Just another thought - could we consider forcing an AfD to be a fact-finding mission about a single question? That is, the nominator asserts that the subject is not notable. The comments should all be about the notability of the subject - if a cogent argument can be made that the subject is notable, then it should be kept. Remarks about verifiability, spelling etc would then be kept out of that discussion.
Interesting idea, but I would explicitly exclude verifiability from that; if we sit for a few days debating notability and then someone drops by and point out that the subject is a hoax and doesn't actually exist, we probably don't want too much red tape in the way of deleting the thing.
Kirill Lokshin
On 5/8/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting idea, but I would explicitly exclude verifiability from that; if we sit for a few days debating notability and then someone drops by and point out that the subject is a hoax and doesn't actually exist, we probably don't want too much red tape in the way of deleting the thing.
Very true, we should probably invent a shortcut procedure for hoaxes and copyright violations. I propose we call it "speedy deletion".
Steve
On 5/9/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/8/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting idea, but I would explicitly exclude verifiability from that; if we sit for a few days debating notability and then someone drops by and point out that the subject is a hoax and doesn't actually exist, we probably don't want too much red tape in the way of deleting the thing.
Very true, we should probably invent a shortcut procedure for hoaxes and copyright violations. I propose we call it "speedy deletion".
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hoaxes as such are not grounds for speedy deletion. You might want to argue that they are vandalism but that would be contentious. If I come across something that is dodgy and there seems to be no verifiable material for it, I normally propose it for deletion.
Whether hoaxes should be grounds for speedy deletion is of course another issue.
See our grounds for speedy deletion for clarification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CSD
Regards
Keith Old
Keith Old
On Mon, 8 May 2006 16:31:37 -0400, you wrote:
Once you strip away all the arguments about "notability" and the sea of guidelines and pseudo-guidelines and random acronyms, you get something like:
- Delete, subject is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.
- Keep, subject _is_ appropriate for an encyclopedia.
From some people, maybe. For my money "notability" is shorthand for having achieved sufficient external recognition and discussion that we can verify that the subject is covered neutrally and accurately.
OK, perhaps also subjects which are so trivial that they are of no conceivable interest to people who do not already know all about them.
Guy (JzG)