On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
2008/12/3 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Thomas Dalton
<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> 2008/12/2 Sigvat Kuekiatngam Stensholt <st09039(a)mi.uib.no>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(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
On 12/4/08, Thomas Dalton
<thomas.dalton(a)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.