AFD functions well, and I'm surprised to see the never ending stream of emails to this list complaining about the process. My only suggestion to improve AFD is for it to have its own mailing list.
Some of AFD's features I find particularly appealing ...
* efficiently disposes of sewage - has a very low error rate * satisfies the appetites of certain editors who crave visibility, drama and social interaction * is a wonderful soap box for bombasts to opine, prognosticate and listen to themselves * distracts the Fucking Idiots from more important parts of the encyclopedia * provides a place for these animals to gnash their teeth and hump each other
...while the rest of us write an encyclopedia.
Most of the complaining has been about the AFD process, when the real problem is the behavior of the editors who are drawn there. If AFD was reworked to eliminate the possibility of bitching, whining and sniveling, this behavior might just move elsewhere in our project.
The current process, amazingly, motivates volunteer editors to passionately evaluate tens of thousands articles per year. And while it's not perfect and can probably be improved, it's pretty damn good.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Grease Monkee wrote:
AFD functions well,
My bullshit detector just went off...
and I'm surprised to see the never ending stream of emails to this list complaining about the process. My only suggestion to improve AFD is for it to have its own mailing list.
Some of AFD's features I find particularly appealing ...
- efficiently disposes of sewage - has a very low error rate
- satisfies the appetites of certain editors who crave visibility, drama and
social interaction
- is a wonderful soap box for bombasts to opine, prognosticate and listen to
themselves
- distracts the Fucking Idiots from more important parts of the encyclopedia
- provides a place for these animals to gnash their teeth and hump each
other
...while the rest of us write an encyclopedia.
And they scare away new contributors as well.
Most of the complaining has been about the AFD process, when the real problem is the behavior of the editors who are drawn there. If AFD was reworked to eliminate the possibility of bitching, whining and sniveling, this behavior might just move elsewhere in our project.
The current process, amazingly, motivates volunteer editors to passionately evaluate tens of thousands articles per year. And while it's not perfect and can probably be improved, it's pretty damn good.
You. Have. Got. To. Be. Joking.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 10/17/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Grease Monkee wrote:
AFD functions well,
My bullshit detector just went off...
Personally, my sarcasm detector went off.
-Matt (User:Morven)
On 10/17/05, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/17/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Grease Monkee wrote:
AFD functions well,
My bullshit detector just went off...
Personally, my sarcasm detector went off.
Regardless, I think there are good points being made. No matter how the specifics of VFD/AFD/VFU/whatever you want to call it are changed, it's never going to be a fun and efficient process. I think the key is to make the process easier to ignore. In my opinion, the way to do that is 1) allow any user to view the content of deleted pages, and 2) not make an ordinary deletion decision set a binding precedent upon those who didn't participate in the discussion. With those simple modifications, I think a lot of people would learn to ignore the minutiae and focus on the larger issues.
-Matt (User:Morven)
Anthony
On 10/17/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
- allow
any user to view the content of deleted pages
Not legal.
-- geni
On 10/17/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/17/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
- allow
any user to view the content of deleted pages
Not legal.
It is fair use. Otherwise, explain why it is legal to allow an admin to see something but illegal to allow me to see it. Besides, I was referring to articles deleted under AFD et. al. anyway. Articles which are illegal to distribute shouldn't be viewable by anyone, including admins.
--
geni
Anthony
On 17/10/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/17/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
- allow
any user to view the content of deleted pages
Not legal.
It is fair use. Otherwise, explain why it is legal to allow an admin to see something but illegal to allow me to see it. Besides, I was referring to articles deleted under AFD et. al. anyway. Articles which are illegal to distribute shouldn't be viewable by anyone, including admins.
This is where we hit a problem.
In order to ensure that they are effectively cleansed, snd that we're not just redistributing protected content, we have to make them not-viewable - it sort of defeats the point if someone can say "huh, just look at [revision] for the content".
However, for the benefit of the project, we need some way of overseeing this process - some way of looking at deleted material to confirm that it was a copyvio, or to see if it should be undeleted, or whatever.
And we can't split things into "deleted because crap" and "deleted because copyvio", allowing people to look at one and not the other - because we'd still need someone to be able to assess the deleted "copyvio material", check that the process wasn't being abused, &c &c.
So, someone has to have this access capacity. It's a big and diffuse job, so it can't really be handled efficiently by palming it off on the handful of developers. Admins are the rational next layer of people to give the right to - there's enough of them that they can do the necessary, but not so many of them that the ability to access the information is being handed out all over the place.
Giving the right of access only to admins is a way of saying "we intend to limit this capacity to the sole amount needed by the project", thus showing that we believe we are using this copyrighted material in an acceptable manner. Giving it to everyone, or even every registered user, would be far les so - the project doesn't need four hundred thousand people to be able to review deleted material, meaning there's no defensible reason for handing out the power to everyone.
On other threads, recently, we've been discussing Special:Checkuser (and associated database work); there, we're all agreed that IP-username information is strictly private, could lead to bad things if thrown around, and so on. But we have a pressing and valid reason, integral to the project, to use that information. The solution is to give it to a limited number of users - it's been suggested for them to be chosen on a case-by-case basis, or to give it to all bureaucrats or stewards, as they're the largest group of people we would need to have the right in order to attend to the problem. The analogy here should be clearish.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
In order to ensure that they are effectively cleansed, snd that we're not just redistributing protected content, we have to make them not-viewable - it sort of defeats the point if someone can say "huh, just look at [revision] for the content".
They already are viewable - by admins. What's the difference from a legal standpoint if this is expanded to all editors, or even to all editors who applied for the privilege?
However, for the benefit of the project, we need some way of
overseeing this process - some way of looking at deleted material to confirm that it was a copyvio, or to see if it should be undeleted, or whatever.
And that's where fair use comes into play.
And we can't split things into "deleted because crap" and "deleted
because copyvio", allowing people to look at one and not the other - because we'd still need someone to be able to assess the deleted "copyvio material", check that the process wasn't being abused, &c &c.
We certainly can split things up, and in fact we already do. As for whether or not anyone needs to be able to see copyvio materials, I don't think this is necessary, but it is the way it currently works. If an admin is deleting as a copyvio articles which never went through the proper channels, that admin would be quickly found regardless of whether or not the actual text were viewable. Maybe we should keep the information anyway, just so we could back out such changes, but all that would need to be viewable is the title in order to check that the system wasn't being abused.
So, someone has to have this access capacity. It's a big and diffuse
job, so it can't really be handled efficiently by palming it off on the handful of developers. Admins are the rational next layer of people to give the right to - there's enough of them that they can do the necessary, but not so many of them that the ability to access the information is being handed out all over the place.
And all editors are the next rational layer of people to give the right to. And there's no reason that one layer is legal but the other one isn't.
Giving the right of access only to admins is a way of saying "we
intend to limit this capacity to the sole amount needed by the project", thus showing that we believe we are using this copyrighted material in an acceptable manner. Giving it to everyone, or even every registered user, would be far les so - the project doesn't need four hundred thousand people to be able to review deleted material, meaning there's no defensible reason for handing out the power to everyone.
Giving the right of access to all admins isn't *necessary*, it's *convenient*. Giving it to all editors, or to all editors who requested permission, isn't necessary, but it'd be convenient. And even then, if that access were limited to a certain subset of deleted pages, say AFD and speedy deletions which weren't copyvios, then there wouldn't even be an argument regarding copyright issues.
On other threads, recently, we've been discussing Special:Checkuser
(and associated database work); there, we're all agreed that IP-username information is strictly private, could lead to bad things if thrown around, and so on. But we have a pressing and valid reason, integral to the project, to use that information. The solution is to give it to a limited number of users - it's been suggested for them to be chosen on a case-by-case basis, or to give it to all bureaucrats or stewards, as they're the largest group of people we would need to have the right in order to attend to the problem. The analogy here should be clearish.
Actually, the analogy is quite poor. The concerns of giving away IP-username information are completely different than the concerns of distributing articles on non-notable topics. And it's highly unlikely that IP-username information will be given to all admins anyway.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Anthony
AFD works pretty well indeed.
It's not infallible or pleasant, but if you want to have the entire community to have a say in the matter, you can't expect either. It's always going to be controversial and spreading ill-feelings but that's just the way it is.
That's why I think we should use VFU to overturn bad AFD decisions in a limited number of cases, like the recent Prof. Wolters from the Netherlands. Apparently, some people think it should only be used to review the process, but we need a process that that makes sure bad deletions can be undone.
While the initial process may be flawless, voters and the closing admin may have been ill-informed and that should be reviewable as well.
"When in doubt don't delete."
--Mgm
geni wrote:
On 10/17/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
- allow
any user to view the content of deleted pages
Not legal.
According to what law? Ec
On 10/17/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
geni wrote:
On 10/17/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
- allow
any user to view the content of deleted pages
Not legal.
According to what law? Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Articles are not only deleted for being crap, sometimes an article is also deleted for containing possibly libellous information or info that could violate someone's privacy. Access to such information should be limited to a minimum of people. Keeping it as historical evidence in case we need it in legal accusations so we can retrace who said what and posted what is essential to Wikipedia, which is why something is rarely completely purged from the database.
--Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 10/17/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
geni wrote:
On 10/17/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
- allow
any user to view the content of deleted pages
Not legal.
According to what law? Ec
Articles are not only deleted for being crap, sometimes an article is also deleted for containing possibly libellous information or info that could violate someone's privacy. Access to such information should be limited to a minimum of people. Keeping it as historical evidence in case we need it in legal accusations so we can retrace who said what and posted what is essential to Wikipedia, which is why something is rarely completely purged from the database.
Anthony's comments related to the general case. Your point, and those since made by others about copyvios, are certainly valid. The problem is that you are using those valid particular arguments to apply to the general case.
Ec
The thing is that, since AFD is deleting the crap that most of us want deleted (garage bands with no songs, the dead-end road down a block from my house), we can say that it works most of the time. To prevent it failing in cases where "save" articles deserve an keeping, but might recieve "nn del" votes, all we have to do is spend more time on AfD. If more dedicated users/inclusionists spend a bunch of time "voting" for articles that need keeping, then the votes of the AFD clique will effectively be canceled. A "no consensus" decision is better than a "delete".
--[[:en:User:Bratsche|Ben]]
-- Bratsche-It means "viola!"
On 10/17/05, Ben E. bratsche1@gmail.com wrote:
The thing is that, since AFD is deleting the crap that most of us want deleted (garage bands with no songs, the dead-end road down a block from my house), we can say that it works most of the time. To prevent it failing in cases where "save" articles deserve an keeping, but might recieve "nn del" votes, all we have to do is spend more time on AfD. If more dedicated users/inclusionists spend a bunch of time "voting" for articles that need keeping, then the votes of the AFD clique will effectively be canceled. A "no consensus" decision is better than a "delete".
I think there are a lot of people with differing opinions who aren't interested in getting into such an arms race. Even if you think that AFD works most of the time, I think you still have to admit that it'd be nice if we could reduce the amount of time people spend on it. I think it was in elementary school that I first learned that a pure democracy was unsustainable because it'd require people constantly voting on every little issue. I was skeptical back then (thinking "that's just what the man teaches you to keep you down"), but I think AFD is a good example of how true it is.
Just throwing out another idea, but what if we appointed a certain number of representatives to debate on AFD for us? It'd lessen the waste of time, all but eliminate the sockpuppetry, foster compromise and discussion among the representatives, etc. The appointment of representatives could use STV or some other proportional scheme, so all significant factions would still be represented. Any user could still comment on a proposal and present evidence to be considered by the representatives. A quorum could be set - if there aren't say 6 voters then the time is extended until there are.
I don't really like the fact that AFD has become all about voting and not about consensus, but I don't think that's going to change. If it isn't, then let's at least streamline the voting process.
Even if you think AFD provides good results, think about how well it scales. It doesn't, and ultimately this is a problem which is going to need a solution.
--[[:en:User:Bratsche|Ben]]
Anthony
On 10/17/05, Ben E. bratsche1@gmail.com wrote:
The thing is that, since AFD is deleting the crap that most of us want deleted (garage bands with no songs, the dead-end road down a block from my house), we can say that it works most of the time. To prevent it failing in cases where "save" articles deserve an keeping, but might recieve "nn del" votes, all we have to do is spend more time on AfD. If more dedicated users/inclusionists spend a bunch of time "voting" for articles that need keeping, then the votes of the AFD clique will effectively be canceled. A "no consensus" decision is better than a "delete".
I think there are a lot of people with differing opinions who aren't interested in getting into such an arms race. Even if you think that AFD works most of the time, I think you still have to admit that it'd be nice if we could reduce the amount of time people spend on it. I think it was in elementary school that I first learned that a pure democracy was unsustainable because it'd require people constantly voting on every little issue. I was skeptical back then (thinking "that's just what the man teaches you to keep you down"), but I think AFD is a good example of how true it is.
Just throwing out another idea, but what if we appointed a certain number of representatives to debate on AFD for us? It'd lessen the waste of time, all but eliminate the sockpuppetry, foster compromise and discussion among the representatives, etc. The appointment of representatives could use STV or some other proportional scheme, so all significant factions would still be represented. Any user could still comment on a proposal and present evidence to be considered by the representatives. A quorum could be set - if there aren't say 6 voters then the time is extended until there are.
I don't really like the fact that AFD has become all about voting and not about consensus, but I don't think that's going to change. If it isn't, then let's at least streamline the voting process.
Even if you think AFD provides good results, think about how well it scales. It doesn't, and ultimately this is a problem which is going to need a solution.
--[[:en:User:Bratsche|Ben]]
Anthony
I hadnt been taking much notice of this thread, but in my irregular series on Victorian philanthropists I got around to [[Sydney Waterlow]] and happened to notice some deleted edits. Someone had only a few months ago linked a URL of a biography to an article that was redlinked from a few places (and possibly in requested encyclopaedic articles for all I know, given the date not unlikely to be in Brittanica 1911 though I havent checked). This was speedied shortly after. I think this wasnt a good decision really - whoever speedied it could have written a stub in a few minutes from the information in the link. The link stuck in by an anon IP seems more like a cry for help ("please write about this") than a speedy candidate.
Justinc
On 10/18/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
I hadnt been taking much notice of this thread, but in my irregular series on Victorian philanthropists I got around to [[Sydney Waterlow]] and happened to notice some deleted edits. Someone had only a few months ago linked a URL of a biography to an article that was redlinked from a few places (and possibly in requested encyclopaedic articles for all I know, given the date not unlikely to be in Brittanica 1911 though I havent checked). This was speedied shortly after. I think this wasnt a good decision really - whoever speedied it could have written a stub in a few minutes from the information in the link. The link stuck in by an anon IP seems more like a cry for help ("please write about this") than a speedy candidate.
Justinc
It was probably speedied by someone on RC patrol. Lots of articles turn up that are nothing more than a link. These isn't really time to do anything about them (and it isn't as if cleanup is crying out for more articles).~~~~
-- geni
On 18 Oct 2005, at 02:51, geni wrote:
On 10/18/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
I hadnt been taking much notice of this thread, but in my irregular series on Victorian philanthropists I got around to [[Sydney Waterlow]] and happened to notice some deleted edits. Someone had only a few months ago linked a URL of a biography to an article that was redlinked from a few places (and possibly in requested encyclopaedic articles for all I know, given the date not unlikely to be in Brittanica 1911 though I havent checked). This was speedied shortly after. I think this wasnt a good decision really - whoever speedied it could have written a stub in a few minutes from the information in the link. The link stuck in by an anon IP seems more like a cry for help ("please write about this") than a speedy candidate.
Justinc
It was probably speedied by someone on RC patrol. Lots of articles turn up that are nothing more than a link. These isn't really time to do anything about them (and it isn't as if cleanup is crying out for more articles).~~~~
Fair enough - my though is if we get 10 times as many people on patrol can we use it as a requested articles feed? It might need a process, or even just a feed into requested articles (where the URL could have been dumped). I admit I have stopped looking at new articles now though.
Justinc
On 10/18/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
Fair enough - my though is if we get 10 times as many people on patrol can we use it as a requested articles feed? It might need a process, or even just a feed into requested articles (where the URL could have been dumped). I admit I have stopped looking at new articles now though.
Justinc
If we had 10 times as many people on patrol so many things would change it is not really posible to make predictions.
-- geni
On 18 Oct 2005, at 03:02, geni wrote:
On 10/18/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
Fair enough - my though is if we get 10 times as many people on patrol can we use it as a requested articles feed? It might need a process, or even just a feed into requested articles (where the URL could have been dumped). I admit I have stopped looking at new articles now though.
Justinc
If we had 10 times as many people on patrol so many things would change it is not really posible to make predictions.
Well I suspect almost everyone does what I does and gives up in despair. But this is just an organizational matter. If all new articles were (automatically?) classified into categories (eg initially unreviewed new articles), then manually classified into say requests, stubs for classification, ones to list on the front page new articles bit, ones that need copyediting, then I might get involved. As it is there is just a big heap of new stuff as far as I can see, and every time I look I run away. (Maybe I am wrong; let me know).
Justinc
Justin Cormack wrote:
Fair enough - my though is if we get 10 times as many people on patrol can we use it as a requested articles feed? It might need a process, or even just a feed into requested articles (where the URL could have been dumped). I admit I have stopped looking at new articles now though.
I do occasionally use it as a requested-articles feed, and have written several fairly lengthy articles starting from sub-stubs. Honestly, though, there is no shortage of requested articles, so the link-only articles aren't really providing much of a service---if I wanted to write an article and was not sure on what to write, there is a very lengthy page already on Wikipedia for requested articles. I'm not inclined to allow people who create link-only articles to get their requests somehow automatically moved to the front of the queue just because they're not allowed to be deleted.
Which is to say, I half-agree---if people are so inclined, feel free to turn a sub-stub into a real article. But if not, it's no great loss if it gets deleted. If you feel particularly badly about it, add it to [[Wikipedia:Requested articles]] after you delete it.
-Mark
On 18 Oct 2005, at 03:14, Delirium wrote:
Justin Cormack wrote:
Fair enough - my though is if we get 10 times as many people on patrol can we use it as a requested articles feed? It might need a process, or even just a feed into requested articles (where the URL could have been dumped). I admit I have stopped looking at new articles now though.
I do occasionally use it as a requested-articles feed, and have written several fairly lengthy articles starting from sub-stubs. Honestly, though, there is no shortage of requested articles, so the link-only articles aren't really providing much of a service--- if I wanted to write an article and was not sure on what to write, there is a very lengthy page already on Wikipedia for requested articles. I'm not inclined to allow people who create link-only articles to get their requests somehow automatically moved to the front of the queue just because they're not allowed to be deleted.
Which is to say, I half-agree---if people are so inclined, feel free to turn a sub-stub into a real article. But if not, it's no great loss if it gets deleted. If you feel particularly badly about it, add it to [[Wikipedia:Requested articles]] after you delete it.
Fair enough. I think I will undelete the original request when I create them like I did for that one, so that the person knows that they were noticed, as an odd form of encouragement.
Justinc
geni wrote:
On 10/18/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
I hadnt been taking much notice of this thread, but in my irregular series on Victorian philanthropists I got around to [[Sydney Waterlow]] and happened to notice some deleted edits. Someone had only a few months ago linked a URL of a biography to an article that was redlinked from a few places (and possibly in requested encyclopaedic articles for all I know, given the date not unlikely to be in Brittanica 1911 though I havent checked). This was speedied shortly after. I think this wasnt a good decision really - whoever speedied it could have written a stub in a few minutes from the information in the link. The link stuck in by an anon IP seems more like a cry for help ("please write about this") than a speedy candidate.
Justinc
It was probably speedied by someone on RC patrol. Lots of articles turn up that are nothing more than a link. These isn't really time to do anything about them (and it isn't as if cleanup is crying out for more articles).~~~~
Ah!!! Now I understand the function of "speedy". It's there for the convenience of those who are so overworked that they haven't got time to write "nn delete". 8-)
Ec
On 10/18/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Ah!!! Now I understand the function of "speedy". It's there for the convenience of those who are so overworked that they haven't got time to write "nn delete". 8-)
Ec
No it's for those who don't have time to write "crap delete"
-- geni
Ben E. wrote:
The thing is that, since AFD is deleting the crap that most of us want deleted (garage bands with no songs, the dead-end road down a block from my house), we can say that it works most of the time. To prevent it failing in cases where "save" articles deserve an keeping, but might recieve "nn del" votes, all we have to do is spend more time on AfD.
Bleah, no thanks. But get back to me when you've developed a deletion process that discourages an "AfD clique" from making binding decisions in areas where they don't actually know anything.
Stan
On 10/17/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/17/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
geni wrote:
On 10/17/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
- allow
any user to view the content of deleted pages
Not legal.
According to what law? Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Articles are not only deleted for being crap, sometimes an article is also deleted for containing possibly libellous information or info that could violate someone's privacy. Access to such information should be limited to a minimum of people. Keeping it as historical evidence in case we need it in legal accusations so we can retrace who said what and posted what is essential to Wikipedia, which is why something is rarely completely purged from the database.
Wikimedia is more of a common carrier and not responsible for libel anyway, but certainly couldn't and shouldn't be held responsible for libel which is contained in the historical archive of things which were written by others.
As for any information which would violate someone's privacy, that should be removed entirely, not kept around for admins to read. Even if you think we should keep it to use as evidence, which I disagree with, that's not a reason to allow admins to view it. If we want to keep access to such information to a minimum of people, then we shouldn't provide access to all admins.
--Mgm
Anthony
On 10/17/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
According to what law? Ec
IANAL
But I suspect the digital millenium copyright act is in there somewhere
-- geni
On 10/17/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/17/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
According to what law? Ec
IANAL
But I suspect the digital millenium copyright act is in there somewhere
If anything, the DMCA would be a *defense* against a lawsuit over this sort of thing. You don't have to be a lawyer, but you should at least know something about the law before you make a statement that something would be illegal.
--
geni
Anthony
On 10/18/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/17/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/17/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
According to what law? Ec
IANAL
But I suspect the digital millenium copyright act is in there somewhere
If anything, the DMCA would be a *defense* against a lawsuit over this sort of thing. You don't have to be a lawyer, but you should at least know something about the law before you make a statement that something would be illegal.
--
geni
Not really because we would have acknowlaged that we know it exists and we know it is a problem.
-- geni