In the course of less than an hour I have come across one speedy delete notice, two Wiktionary move notices, and a VfD notice, all attached to new short mathematics pages. All of which would properly be labelled stubs.
The Wikipedians responsible don't have specialist knowledge - they seem to feel that remedies for stubs other than stub notices should exist (and in one case, thinks that if it looks like a typographjc mess, it must be nonsense).
As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia still needs stubs to grow, precisely in areas where it is currently weak.
Charles
Yes, rapid fire drive-by-deletion is out of control. People list articles within minutes of their creation, without doing even basic due dilligence to see whether they meet the criteria for deletion. Mark
--- Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
In the course of less than an hour I have come across one speedy delete notice, two Wiktionary move notices, and a VfD notice, all attached to new short mathematics pages. All of which would properly be labelled stubs.
The Wikipedians responsible don't have specialist knowledge - they seem to feel that remedies for stubs other than stub notices should exist (and in one case, thinks that if it looks like a typographjc mess, it must be nonsense).
As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia still needs stubs to grow, precisely in areas where it is currently weak.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Mark Richards wrote:
Yes, rapid fire drive-by-deletion is out of control.
Just because rapid-fire nonsense substub creation is out of control. And way to many of real speedy-deletions survive the new page patrol, and only get noticed by sheer lucky later - e.g. if an Image:Example.jpg is used, or someone checks the short articles or orphaned articles later on. Of course there is some collateral damage sometimes - yesterday I rescued to stubs of [[Elder Edda]] poems which were already marked by {{delete}} - but as they were just one-liners the loss wouldn't have been that big.
As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia still needs stubs to grow, precisely in areas where it is currently weak.
That's the old discussion if a stub makes a topic grow better than a non-existiting article, and if a stub look better/worse than a non-existing article. IMHO everything below three sentences isn't worth it, but I know that's currently not the consensus.
Bye, [[User:Ahoerstemeier]]
On 21 Oct 2004, at 14:56, Rebecca wrote:
MHO everything below three sentences isn't worth it, but I know that's currently not the consensus.
I'm not so sure. A vocal minority decided this, and to my knowledge it was never voted upon. A nice coup d'etat, indeed.
-- ambi
With respect, that's a bunch of Mullarkey.
There may have been little turnout on related decisionmaking, but abstentions are a common occurrence in democratic processes. (They actually are a quite normal, even vital part of said processes.) Just because your side didn't succeed in turning out more supporters of your POV, that doesn't entitle you to claim that you represented any kind of majority.
[[If and only if]] you successfully mobilize more supporters than the opposing side, THEN you can lay claim to representing majority opinion.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
Jens Ropers wrote:
On 21 Oct 2004, at 14:56, Rebecca wrote:
MHO everything below three sentences isn't worth it, but I know that's currently not the consensus.
I'm not so sure. A vocal minority decided this, and to my knowledge it was never voted upon. A nice coup d'etat, indeed. -- ambi
With respect, that's a bunch of Mullarkey.
There may have been little turnout on related decisionmaking, but abstentions are a common occurrence in democratic processes. (They actually are a quite normal, even vital part of said processes.) Just because your side didn't succeed in turning out more supporters of your POV, that doesn't entitle you to claim that you represented any kind of majority.
[[If and only if]] you successfully mobilize more supporters than the opposing side, THEN you can lay claim to representing majority opinion.
She did not claim that she represented the majority, only that a decision was made by a vocal minority. Going strictly on the basis of what she said in those comments, I could not be sure of which side she supported.
Votes are always being generated by somebody around here. Vocal minorities are often involved in using them to subvert democratic processes. That a person may have been a part of the majority on a given occasion is meningless. I really have better things to do with my time than responding to constant attempts to martial opinions for issues that keep repeating themselves. Such vote gathering exercises only serve to divide the community and keep it divided.
Your intimation that those who don't vote are exercising an abstention is misleading. Many were probably not even properly notified. This is the first time that this particular flavour of the issue has been raised on the mailing list, and even now you don't say where I could go to vote if I wanted.
In the past I have made it abundantly clear that I am in the inclusionist camp. Why should I constantly need to repeat myself? One thing that is certain is that the entire community has a major division over this. Seeking new majorities on minor variations is not going to solve anything. Listening to each other, and respecting the efforts of a stub's contributor will.
Ec
I thought we were running a concensus, rather than first-past-the-post system. Perhaps I'm very old-fasioned. Mark
--- Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote:
On 21 Oct 2004, at 14:56, Rebecca wrote:
MHO everything below three sentences isn't worth it, but I know that's currently not the
consensus.
I'm not so sure. A vocal minority decided this,
and to my knowledge it
was never voted upon. A nice coup d'etat, indeed.
-- ambi
With respect, that's a bunch of Mullarkey.
There may have been little turnout on related decisionmaking, but abstentions are a common occurrence in democratic processes. (They actually are a quite normal, even vital part of said processes.) Just because your side didn't succeed in turning out more supporters of your POV, that doesn't entitle you to claim that you represented any kind of majority.
[[If and only if]] you successfully mobilize more supporters than the opposing side, THEN you can lay claim to representing majority opinion.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:02:05 +0100, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
In the course of less than an hour I have come across one speedy delete notice, two Wiktionary move notices, and a VfD notice, all attached to new short mathematics pages. All of which would properly be labelled stubs.
The Wikipedians responsible don't have specialist knowledge - they seem to feel that remedies for stubs other than stub notices should exist (and in one case, thinks that if it looks like a typographjc mess, it must be nonsense).
As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia still needs stubs to grow, precisely in areas where it is currently weak.
I agree. The idea that stubs are bad is silly. WP isn't, and probably will never be, a finished work.
As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia still needs stubs to grow, precisely in areas where it is currently weak.
I agree. The idea that stubs are bad is silly. WP isn't, and probably will never be, a finished work.
Absolutely no one here appears to be suggesting that stubs are bad. If we had any deletionists at all who were as hardline as Anthony, Mark Richards or Mr. Knight, then that's probably what they would argue.
I haven't seen the cases at hand, but knowing recent events, I'd guess that they were probably substubs. And that's where they don't help Wikipedia, because they contribute precisely nothing (and diminish our credibility, by showing us to prefer quantity over quality).
-- ambi
Rebecca wrote
I haven't seen the cases at hand, but knowing recent events, I'd guess that they were probably substubs. And that's where they don't help Wikipedia, because they contribute precisely nothing (and diminish our credibility, by showing us to prefer quantity over quality).
They were: [[taut submanifold]], [[isometric immersion]], [[Riemannian submanifold]] and [[critical point]].
The whole deletionist/inclusionist thing is a red herring here (though obviously a debate waiting to happen). All I wanted to point out, was that existing, accepted policies were not being applied with care.
As for all that: I would consider myself deletionist when it comes to the sciences, inclusionist for the humanities, and not otherwise very engaged in the debate (no ads, vanity pages, etc.) .
I'm a stubophile, though. I don't think there is enough agreement about the 'quality' we are supposed to prefer over quantity. I signed up, not entirely convinced about the premise, with the SystemicBias WikiProject; the way Danny's competition is going now seems designed to make their case for them. What you would do, to correct the slant towards (for example) well-fed people who appear on TV in the USA, would be to post articles about significant other kinds of people, even if information was harder to find.
Charles
Charles Matthews wrote:
Rebecca wrote
I haven't seen the cases at hand, but knowing recent events, I'd guess that they were probably substubs. And that's where they don't help Wikipedia, because they contribute precisely nothing (and diminish our credibility, by showing us to prefer quantity over quality).
They were: [[taut submanifold]], [[isometric immersion]], [[Riemannian submanifold]] and [[critical point]].
The whole deletionist/inclusionist thing is a red herring here (though obviously a debate waiting to happen). All I wanted to point out, was that
Not waiting to happen, happening again. We've been over arguments like this repeatedly, and I don't see it stopping anytime soon. Assuming current conditions persist, I hope it doesn't stop, because it prevents things from swinging wildly toward either extreme.
existing, accepted policies were not being applied with care.
That's a great deal of my point, too. A number of people appear to be ignoring almost all current policy and using VFD as some sort of rubber-stamp mechanism with no concern for how the process is supposed to work.
Nicholas Knight wrote
Not waiting to happen, happening again. We've been over arguments like this repeatedly, and I don't see it stopping anytime soon.
Same thing. I agree with you, and disagree with Ed Poor - if it's the debate people want to have, then it will happen in this forum. No matter if it settles nothing.
Charles
Rebecca wrote:
Absolutely no one here appears to be suggesting that stubs are bad. If we had any deletionists at all who were as hardline as Anthony, Mark Richards or Mr. Knight, then that's probably what they would argue.
Hardline? As in hardline inclusionist? Excuse me one moment... *off in the distance you hear a great deal of laughter*
I'm sorry... hehehe... I'm back now... hehehehehehe...
Perhaps you'd care to pay a little more attention to my arguments? (Not to mention my past history? 1-1.5 years ago on this very list I opposed measures that made it more troublesome to get articles deleted.)
I joined Ray Saintonge in rejecting some notions of what criteria should be used in deleting articles, argued with John Lee over a few of those notions (later finding out it was partially a misunderstanding due to the insane number of ways people are using "notability" in this discussion), and commented on one specific case John brought up which I felt was a clear-cut abuse of VFD.
I don't think I've ever even voted on VFD one way or another. A quick glance at a few current entries reveal three I think should probably be deleted, one I think shouldn't be, and one I'm not too sure of.
This is "hardline"? Just what would your definition of moderate be?
?? There is nothing 'hardline' about the opinion that factual, neutral and verifiable material should be kept. Mark
--- Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia still needs
stubs to grow, precisely in
areas where it is currently weak.
I agree. The idea that stubs are bad is silly. WP
isn't, and
probably will never be, a finished work.
Absolutely no one here appears to be suggesting that stubs are bad. If we had any deletionists at all who were as hardline as Anthony, Mark Richards or Mr. Knight, then that's probably what they would argue.
I haven't seen the cases at hand, but knowing recent events, I'd guess that they were probably substubs. And that's where they don't help Wikipedia, because they contribute precisely nothing (and diminish our credibility, by showing us to prefer quantity over quality).
-- ambi _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com