-----Original Message----- From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen [mailto:cimonavaro@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 09:14 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)
I personally fear systemic bias on wikipedia is being squeezed from two directions concurrently at the moment.
The way AFD currently works means that pages which are not on many users watchlists is uniquely vulnerable to AFD-wonks predation. So that means that the bias stemming from our communitys composition not only affects what gets created but also what gets deleted. This two-way squeeze worries me.
Although I commend in general terms the drive to emphasize quality over quantity, to me at least that does not extend so far as to emphasizing removal of content over creation of it. And this is a question that should at least be addressed. I think it would be useful if the board and or Jimbo uttered something on the matter to let us know how they view the question in general on this mailing list.
I do not wish to make this a discussion of specific examples but rather a more general definition of guiding principles. But if necessary for illustrating the reality of the issue, I will find some examples to ground it in reality. I really don't think such is necessary, and would much prefer to discuss the matter under a "veil of ignorance" about which particular areas are most vulnerable, and in the abstract.
So how about it? Even if we accept that quantity is *less* important than the quality, is creation still preferred over removal?
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
I'm with you on this, although my position is much more liberal than most. I think it is a shame that people's good work about significant subjects is routinely discarded.
Fred
I've been thinking of searching through the deletion logs, taking everything that's not "JOSH LIKES MEN LOLOLOL" and putting it on a website so if Wikipedia wants it again or an independent wiki they can look at it then I'll ship off the good stuff to them.
Even if some things are a bit too... specialist, they could go on a Wikia wiki.
On 1/12/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen [mailto:cimonavaro@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 09:14 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)
I personally fear systemic bias on wikipedia is being squeezed from two directions concurrently at the moment.
The way AFD currently works means that pages which are not on many users watchlists is uniquely vulnerable to AFD-wonks predation. So that means that the bias stemming from our communitys composition not only affects what gets created but also what gets deleted. This two-way squeeze worries me.
Although I commend in general terms the drive to emphasize quality over quantity, to me at least that does not extend so far as to emphasizing removal of content over creation of it. And this is a question that should at least be addressed. I think it would be useful if the board and or Jimbo uttered something on the matter to let us know how they view the question in general on this mailing list.
I do not wish to make this a discussion of specific examples but rather a more general definition of guiding principles. But if necessary for illustrating the reality of the issue, I will find some examples to ground it in reality. I really don't think such is necessary, and would much prefer to discuss the matter under a "veil of ignorance" about which particular areas are most vulnerable, and in the abstract.
So how about it? Even if we accept that quantity is *less* important than the quality, is creation still preferred over removal?
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
I'm with you on this, although my position is much more liberal than most. I think it is a shame that people's good work about significant subjects is routinely discarded.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/12/07, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
I've been thinking of searching through the deletion logs, taking everything that's not "JOSH LIKES MEN LOLOLOL" and putting it on a website so if Wikipedia wants it again or an independent wiki they can look at it then I'll ship off the good stuff to them.
Even if some things are a bit too... specialist, they could go on a Wikia wiki.
I'm afraid [[Clifford A. Pickover]] has already beaten you to that, although I am unsure how comprehensive his [[Wikidumper.org]] is.
--Gwern
Cunning website! Maybe I'll get in touch with him...
On 1/12/07, gwern branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/12/07, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
I've been thinking of searching through the deletion logs, taking
everything
that's not "JOSH LIKES MEN LOLOLOL" and putting it on a website so if Wikipedia wants it again or an independent wiki they can look at it then I'll ship off the good stuff to them.
Even if some things are a bit too... specialist, they could go on a
Wikia
wiki.
I'm afraid [[Clifford A. Pickover]] has already beaten you to that, although I am unsure how comprehensive his [[Wikidumper.org]] is.
--Gwern
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/12/07, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
I've been thinking of searching through the deletion logs, taking everything that's not "JOSH LIKES MEN LOLOLOL" and putting it on a website so if Wikipedia wants it again or an independent wiki they can look at it then I'll ship off the good stuff to them.
Even if some things are a bit too... specialist, they could go on a Wikia wiki.
You realise that can get you de-admined? Need to be careful about why stuff was deleted.
Darn it, you foiled my plans to totally screw around with people's lives! SARCASM ASIDE, I think I would've stayed away from the quagmires even if you hadn't told me how it presents a pickle.
The stuff I'd resurrect would be things deleted for non-notability -- things that are still information albeit not to Wikipedia's standards.
On 1/12/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/12/07, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
I've been thinking of searching through the deletion logs, taking
everything
that's not "JOSH LIKES MEN LOLOLOL" and putting it on a website so if Wikipedia wants it again or an independent wiki they can look at it then I'll ship off the good stuff to them.
Even if some things are a bit too... specialist, they could go on a
Wikia
wiki.
You realise that can get you de-admined? Need to be careful about why stuff was deleted.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/12/07, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Darn it, you foiled my plans to totally screw around with people's lives! SARCASM ASIDE, I think I would've stayed away from the quagmires even if you hadn't told me how it presents a pickle.
Do you know where they are? are you sure? are you really sure? Do you not wish to be an admin?
Ah paranoia can be a wounderful thing
The stuff I'd resurrect would be things deleted for non-notability -- things that are still information albeit not to Wikipedia's standards.
You mean all the quagmires that got hidden as a standard A7 delete?
Lets just say that both policy and practice in this area are rather inconsistant so you may wish to be careful.
I've been here for a while and yes, I should know what the problems are. Copyvios, attack pages, personal information, negative things about living people that cannot be attributed to a source, oh my some people don't get the clue that this is an encyclopedia.
On 1/12/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/12/07, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Darn it, you foiled my plans to totally screw around with people's
lives!
SARCASM ASIDE, I think I would've stayed away from the quagmires even if
you
hadn't told me how it presents a pickle.
Do you know where they are? are you sure? are you really sure? Do you not wish to be an admin?
Ah paranoia can be a wounderful thing
The stuff I'd resurrect would be things deleted for non-notability --
things
that are still information albeit not to Wikipedia's standards.
You mean all the quagmires that got hidden as a standard A7 delete?
Lets just say that both policy and practice in this area are rather inconsistant so you may wish to be careful. -- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
geni wrote:
On 1/12/07, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Darn it, you foiled my plans to totally screw around with people's lives! SARCASM ASIDE, I think I would've stayed away from the quagmires even if you hadn't told me how it presents a pickle.
Do you know where they are? are you sure? are you really sure? Do you not wish to be an admin?
Huh? He would be putting the deleted material on an alien site.
Ah paranoia can be a wounderful thing
Nice pun! "Wound" as in injury, or "wound" as in a clock spring? :-)
Ec