On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2008/12/3 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/2 Sigvat Kuekiatngam Stensholt st09039@mi.uib.no:
I am in one sense amused, in another sense astonished, that Ellen Hambro, the leader of what is effectively the Norwegian Environmental Protection Agency, up for AFD, and even more astonished to see some
long
time contributors voting to delete it.
Things get proposed for AFD all the time that shouldn't be deleted, that's why we have an AFD process and don't just let anyone delete anything they like. If it actually gets deleted, then it may be indicative of a problem, but just getting put up for AFD isn't a problem at all.
Not *at all*? Doesn't it waste everyone's time?
Well, it uses up people's time, but the alternative is things not getting deleted that should be, so I don't consider it a waste of time.
The alternative to proposing things for AFD all the time that shouldn't be deleted is to not delete things that should be? I don't see how that follows.
If a system of community prosecution was constantly putting innocent people on trial, would that not be a problem at all? The alternative is to not put criminals in jail, right?
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.comwrote:
On 12/4/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Tagged, but not deleted? Sounds like the system is working, then.
To the same extent that a non-fatal runway incursion indicates good traffic control (read: minimally).
Actually, it's less indicative of the system working, because the sample is naturally skewed towards the articles which are not deleted. I suppose the sample set includes articles which were deleted and then undeleted, although I've even heard those referred to as evidence that the system is working.