Erik wrote:
The page was now deleted, in spite of no consensus, and in spite of a very large amount of blog coverage and a newspaper report in Politiken about it. Whether you like it or not (and I don't), it does meet the WP:WEB criteria. This is part of a worrying and growing trend among admins to do whatever they feel like when they close an AfD. Overriding community opinion should only be done in exceptional circumstances and with clear documentation of one's reasoning, which can then be taken into policy discussions. Otherwise you end up with completely arbitrary enforcement, and an ever growing tension between admins and regular users.
Is every random spammer who hits 'edit' automatically a member of the 'community'?
Why would we give automatic suffrage to folks who have not yet demonstrated a significant degree of support or even understanding of the goals of the project?
Why do I ask? Going down the VFD page it would appear that a large number, if not a majority, of the 'keep' voters have less than 50 article edits. Some have no article edits at all.
Almost any form of edit count or tenure weighing would leave this a clear consensus for delete. Even more importantly, the arguments on the delete side are far more compelling in my view: for example, Thatcher131's observation that "eon8 gets one hit on Google News and one hit on Lexis/Nexis; both are blog-related hits based solely on the claims of the website itself". With that in mind, how can you claim that the article isn't an attempt to spread an idea as opposed to merely documenting already popular idea?
This is not the clear cut case of ignoring consensus that you make it out to be.
Erik wrote: [snip]
You need to stop worrying and learn to love the wiki.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an experiment is extreme democracy. Wiki is a wonderful tool, but it's just that... A tool. Not an end goal. That we are a Wiki does not excuse us from conventional obligations like quality.
On 7/5/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Is every random spammer who hits 'edit' automatically a member of the 'community'?
Why would we give automatic suffrage to folks who have not yet demonstrated a significant degree of support or even understanding of the goals of the project?
Why do I ask? Going down the VFD page it would appear that a large number, if not a majority, of the 'keep' voters have less than 50 article edits. Some have no article edits at all.
Almost any form of edit count or tenure weighing would leave this a clear consensus for delete. Even more importantly, the arguments on the delete side are far more compelling in my view: for example, Thatcher131's observation that "eon8 gets one hit on Google News and one hit on Lexis/Nexis; both are blog-related hits based solely on the claims of the website itself". With that in mind, how can you claim that the article isn't an attempt to spread an idea as opposed to merely documenting already popular idea?
This is not the clear cut case of ignoring consensus that you make it out to be.
I just think we need to select admins who we can trust to make the decision to take these types of editors into less account than others. Admins are chosen because the community trusts them to be able to determine consensus (along with a few other minor things ;-)). So we need to make sure the quality of admins remains high. We need admins that are willing to do a little research into the "voters". And look at the discusison, not just the numbers on either side of the keep/delete line. Admins that base things on numbers alone should be censured (or some other analogous procedure). --LV
On Jul 5, 2006, at 10:46 AM, Lord Voldemort wrote:
I just think we need to select admins who we can trust to make the decision to take these types of editors into less account than others. Admins are chosen because the community trusts them to be able to determine consensus (along with a few other minor things ;-)). So we need to make sure the quality of admins remains high. We need admins that are willing to do a little research into the "voters". And look at the discusison, not just the numbers on either side of the keep/delete line. Admins that base things on numbers alone should be censured (or some other analogous procedure). --LV
RfC? :)
On 7/5/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On Jul 5, 2006, at 10:46 AM, Lord Voldemort wrote:
I just think we need to select admins who we can trust to make the decision to take these types of editors into less account than others. Admins are chosen because the community trusts them to be able to determine consensus (along with a few other minor things ;-)). So we need to make sure the quality of admins remains high. We need admins that are willing to do a little research into the "voters". And look at the discusison, not just the numbers on either side of the keep/delete line. Admins that base things on numbers alone should be censured (or some other analogous procedure). --LV
RfC? :)
Yeah, but like a big souped-up RfC with teeth like a doberman. You know, the kind of pre-facial tattoo Mike Tyson punch that can't be ignored and they make Nintendo games about. Yeeeeah... now that's the kind of RfC I wanna see.
On 7/5/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, but like a big souped-up RfC with teeth like a doberman. You know, the kind of pre-facial tattoo Mike Tyson punch that can't be ignored and they make Nintendo games about. Yeeeeah... now that's the kind of RfC I wanna see.
http://70.86.201.113/imageserv2/stilltemporary/PBF088ADWorldChampion.html ?
Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote: On 7/5/06, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Is every random spammer who hits 'edit' automatically a member of the 'community'?
Why would we give automatic suffrage to folks who have not yet demonstrated a significant degree of support or even understanding of the goals of the project?
Why do I ask? Going down the VFD page it would appear that a large number, if not a majority, of the 'keep' voters have less than 50 article edits. Some have no article edits at all.
Almost any form of edit count or tenure weighing would leave this a clear consensus for delete. Even more importantly, the arguments on the delete side are far more compelling in my view: for example, Thatcher131's observation that "eon8 gets one hit on Google News and one hit on Lexis/Nexis; both are blog-related hits based solely on the claims of the website itself". With that in mind, how can you claim that the article isn't an attempt to spread an idea as opposed to merely documenting already popular idea?
This is not the clear cut case of ignoring consensus that you make it out to be.
I just think we need to select admins who we can trust to make the decision to take these types of editors into less account than others. Admins are chosen because the community trusts them to be able to determine consensus (along with a few other minor things ;-)). So we need to make sure the quality of admins remains high. We need >>admins that are willing to do a little research into the "voters". And look at the discusison, not just the numbers on either side of the keep/delete line. Admins that base things on numbers alone should be censured (or some other analogous procedure). --LV
That is utter nonsense to say that administrators should not base their decisons of that of a user's experience, paticularly in mainspace. This common practice of new editors who have as little as below the 10 edit mark or the like claim "I know what is best for wikipedia" and "I know what the encyclopedia is all about." Such opinions should not be taken seriously. - Randall Brackett _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
On 7/5/06, Zero megamanzero521@yahoo.com wrote:
[...] That is utter nonsense to say that administrators should not base their decisons of that of a user's experience, paticularly in mainspace. This common practice of new editors who have as little as below the 10 edit mark or the like claim "I know what is best for wikipedia" and "I know what the encyclopedia is all about." Such opinions should not be taken seriously.
Nor should they be completely discounted.
Among other things, newbie editors are likely the purest voice we can get from the user community (non-editing readers) as to what they care about.
"What they care about" is not "What we should do" by any means, but it's worth listening to.
On 7/5/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Is every random spammer who hits 'edit' automatically a member of the 'community'?
Why would we give automatic suffrage to folks who have not yet demonstrated a significant degree of support or even understanding of the goals of the project?
Why do I ask? Going down the VFD page it would appear that a large number, if not a majority, of the 'keep' voters have less than 50 article edits. Some have no article edits at all.
Almost any form of edit count or tenure weighing would leave this a clear consensus for delete.
Evidences?
in any case your current account doesn't appear to have any edits pre 21 March 2005
Even more importantly, the arguments on the delete side are far more compelling in my view: for example, Thatcher131's observation that "eon8 gets one hit on Google News and one hit on Lexis/Nexis; both are blog-related hits based solely on the claims of the website itself".
Outdated.
With that in mind, how can you claim that the article isn't an attempt to spread an idea as opposed to merely documenting already popular idea?
because all the pop culture centres of the internet have already been hit.
On 7/5/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Almost any form of edit count or tenure weighing would leave this a clear consensus for delete.
Evidences?
What criteria would you consider acceptable?
in any case your current account doesn't appear to have any edits pre 21 March 2005
Um, I was editing frequently in November 2004 at the latest, if my contribs don't reflect that then there has been dataloss, but I don't see how thats material. I'm not proposing that we treat people like you with over 9k edits, and me with over 20k edits across accounts and projects, or me who was active since the end of 2004 and you since the beginning of 2004 differently.
Whats an edit? Whats a day? It's likely that you've put more work into each of your edits than I have into mine... or perhaps it's likely that I spent more hours of each of my days thinking about or working on Wikimedia projects than you. No one can say.
I'm suggesting we treat users with zero edits, with 50 edits, with 100 edits, with different consideration from users with months of experience. Is that so hard to accept? Can you honestly say that there is reason to automatically assume someone with 50 article edits has any real experience unless they tell us so? Or are you you too a proponent of the "Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia... it's an experiment in extreme democracy" school of thought?
Sure, all of us were new at some point... and quite a few of the things I said early on were a waste of other people's time, if not just overtly stupid. Had I been named supreme ruler of Wikipedia in my first week I would have no doubt screwed up it far worse than if I were named supreme ruler today. If you don't believe the same is true of you, you need to take a look in the mirror and go find a good dose of humble.
Outdated.
Cite? There is also a single Dutch newspaper. I too have been a part of fluff stories in the press, do I get an article now?
With that in mind, how can you claim that the article isn't an attempt to spread an idea as opposed to merely documenting already popular idea?
because all the pop culture centres of the internet have already been hit.
Wikipedia The Free Pop culture centre of the internet that anyone can edit
Doesn't quite have the same ring to it. :) :)
There is a whole great big wide world out there beyond the internet, slashdot, and blogs... I know that a lot of Wikipedians have a hard time accepting it.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone hold the view that every single piece of tripe that shows up as page filler in any print rag, or every bit of glurge that blasts across a few million readerless blogs, belongs in Wikipedia. And yet we see these argued as solid reasons whenever they make an easy argument to preserve the existence of the arguers personal navel lint.
On 7/5/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Almost any form of edit count or tenure weighing would leave this a clear consensus for delete.
Evidences?
What criteria would you consider acceptable?
I've seen people make up tables in the past with both sides listed by number of edits. Quite interesting
Um, I was editing frequently in November 2004 at the latest, if my contribs don't reflect that then there has been dataloss, but I don't see how thats material. I'm not proposing that we treat people like you with over 9k edits, and me with over 20k edits across accounts and projects, or me who was active since the end of 2004 and you since the beginning of 2004 differently.
I was woundering about that. You sure you didn't change accounts or something? I don't think there has been much dataloss of undeleted edits since the switchover to 1.3 and that was fixed.
I'm suggesting we treat users with zero edits, with 50 edits, with 100 edits, with different consideration from users with months of experience. Is that so hard to accept?
Traff for arbcom elections was 150 edits and 3 months. Getting that into place was not fun (and some people still want to get rid of it see [[Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Elections/December_2006#Eligibility_for_candidacy]])
Can you honestly say that there is reason to automatically assume someone with 50 article edits has any real experience unless they tell us so? Or are you you too a proponent of the "Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia... it's an experiment in extreme democracy" school of thought?
No I'm a process is important indidivdual.
Sure, all of us were new at some point... and quite a few of the things I said early on were a waste of other people's time, if not just overtly stupid. Had I been named supreme ruler of Wikipedia in my first week I would have no doubt screwed up it far worse than if I were named supreme ruler today. If you don't believe the same is true of you, you need to take a look in the mirror and go find a good dose of humble.
I would argue that these days my greater knowlage would allow me more varried and spectatular ways of screwing up.However that is beside the point.
Outdated.
Cite? There is also a single Dutch newspaper. I too have been a part of fluff stories in the press, do I get an article now?
Well there are now 4 hits on google news (5 if you count Joystiq twice as google appears to be doing). As for the question of your gettting an article I seem to recall that some of the inclusionists I ran into over the schools issue would probably have said yes.
Wikipedia The Free Pop culture centre of the internet that anyone can edit
Doesn't quite have the same ring to it. :) :)
Maybe but goatse is probably one of our most popular articles.
G'day Gregory,
Is every random spammer who hits 'edit' automatically a member of the 'community'?
No, you have to put a userbox saying "This user masturbates with his/her left hand only" on your userpage before you can consider yourself a member of the "community".
Why would we give automatic suffrage to folks who have not yet demonstrated a significant degree of support or even understanding of the goals of the project?
Greg, Greg, Greg! Tut, tut. You of all people ...
The concept of "suffrage" is not relevant to AfD, because *xfD is not a vote*. Newbies flooding an AfD discussion and needing to be ignored is a Big Problem ... if you're one of those few silly billy closers who count votes and make poor decisions and let the side down badly.
We let people edit articles with no community standing at all. Why wouldn't we let them add evidence to an AfD discussion? Newbies, it's true, don't usually contribute anything worthwhile to an AfD --- and if they don't, I'll ignore them on that particular discussion on that basis alone. If a new user *does* have something of value to say, then I'll take their views into account, whether they have 50 article edits or 5000.
<snip/>
Almost any form of edit count or tenure weighing would leave this a clear consensus for delete. Even more importantly, the arguments on the delete side are far more compelling in my view: for example, Thatcher131's observation that "eon8 gets one hit on Google News and one hit on Lexis/Nexis; both are blog-related hits based solely on the claims of the website itself". With that in mind, how can you claim that the article isn't an attempt to spread an idea as opposed to merely documenting already popular idea?
"Even more importantly"? I'd say the argument of the alleged strength of the "delete" case (I haven't read the subpage myself) far outweighs any "they don't have suffrage!"-type comments.
<snip/>
On 7/5/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote: [snip]
The concept of "suffrage" is not relevant to AfD, because *xfD is not a vote*. Newbies flooding an AfD discussion and needing to be ignored is a Big Problem ... if you're one of those few silly billy closers who count votes and make poor decisions and let the side down badly.
We let people edit articles with no community standing at all. Why wouldn't we let them add evidence to an AfD discussion? Newbies, it's true, don't usually contribute anything worthwhile to an AfD --- and if they don't, I'll ignore them on that particular discussion on that basis alone. If a new user *does* have something of value to say, then I'll take their views into account, whether they have 50 article edits or 5000.
[snip]
A major part of the argument made both here and on the Wiki was that the consensus of the community was ignored which is why the question of whether the new users and folks with no article edits are part of the community is material because they are, primarily, the folks whos position did not prevail.
I didn't suggest that new users and complete outsiders can't offer useful input, quite the contrary... I believe that we need to do more to embrace outside expertise. But there is a huge difference between considering outside input and giving stranger to our project equal space on the puck of the [[ouiji board]] of democracy.
Put it to you another way, when you find some strange berries on the ground outside of your house, do you smell them, touch them, look them up in an encyclopedia before eating them... or do you simply grind them up, pull out a needle, and inject them into your veins?
Allowing unknown users equal access to inject their potentially uninformed decisions into the control mix of the project is effectively equivalent.
While we accept submissions promiscuously, that doesn't mean that we must or should accept decision making in the same manner. If we did Wikipedia may well have been voted into a giant hangman or wiki chess game long ago. There is a fundamental difference between accepting a gift from a stranger and more intimate interactions.
Almost any form of edit count or tenure weighing would leave this a clear consensus for delete. Even more importantly, the arguments on the delete side are far more compelling in my view:
"Even more importantly"? I'd say the argument of the alleged strength of the "delete" case (I haven't read the subpage myself) far outweighs any "they don't have suffrage!"-type comments.
I agree which is why I said it was more important. However, reasonable people may disagree on the strength of the arguments, but that doesn't translate into ignoring the community.
Since it's been claimed that the 'community' was ignored, I can only conclude that the position was formed based on a by the numbers view. My personal perspective is that by the numbers is never good no matter what weighing games you play, but it's not material... the claim that the community was ignored is not valid no matter how you measure the AFD results. Even 'by the numbers' should recognize that meatpuppets, and bleeding edge new users don't represent the "community". :)
Cheers.
On 7/5/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Going down the VFD page it would appear that a large number, if not a majority, of the 'keep' voters have less than 50 article edits. Some have no article edits at all.
First of all, I strongly advocate quickly semi-protecting AfDs in cases like this to avoid too much newbie noise. Newbies can still comment on the talk page.
The high level of newbie participation is exactly the problem with articles like this. When an AfD has a very large number of newbies defending the article (and a large amount of OR and speculative edits before then), admins tend to interpret all "Keep" arguments as part of the same newbie reaction. This leads to the interesting phenomenon that an article may be more likely to be deleted if there's substantial outside interest in it.
Note that I argued "Weak keep". It's not a very popular or interesting website -- hardly worth crying over -- but it did receive coverage in a newspaper with over half a million readers, and on several popular websites, including Slashdot, which has a paid editorial staff and more traffic than Wired. Ironically, Wikipedia has a very strong emotional bias against blogs and other new types of Internet publications.
As a freelance journalist, I find that somewhat concerning. I have written for newspapers with large circulations, and I know that fact-checking before deadlines is often minimal. Several of the articles I wrote for print publications have been made considerably worse by the editorial staff (i.e. obvious factual and grammatical errors introduced).
It is not wise to believe that something magically becomes notable the moment some print journalist for the NYT cares about, and it magically becomes irrelevant the moment the "blogosphere" reports about it. We need fair and reasonable standards of notability which take into account the fact that our media landscape is radically transforming.
Under a regular AfD, this "Eon8" site would probably have closely passed WP:WEB (which is a guideline anyway), as many web comics, borderline notable websites, memes, and so on do. We should not have kept it because many confused teenagers thought they were witness to an important event. But we should also not have deleted for that same reason. Notability should be independent of outside interest.
Erik
On 7/5/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Erik wrote:
The page was now deleted, in spite of no consensus, and in spite of a very large amount of blog coverage and a newspaper report in Politiken about it. Whether you like it or not (and I don't), it does meet the WP:WEB criteria. This is part of a worrying and growing trend among admins to do whatever they feel like when they close an AfD. Overriding community opinion should only be done in exceptional circumstances and with clear documentation of one's reasoning, which can then be taken into policy discussions. Otherwise you end up with completely arbitrary enforcement, and an ever growing tension between admins and regular users.
Is every random spammer who hits 'edit' automatically a member of the 'community'?
Yes, the applicable guideline is "assume good faith." Until and unless they prove themselves to be "random spammers," please treat them with respect.
Why would we give automatic suffrage to folks who have not yet demonstrated a significant degree of support or even understanding of the goals of the project?
Because they are giving up their free time trying to help the project. That demonstrates their support.
On 7/6/06, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
Why would we give automatic suffrage to folks who have not yet demonstrated a significant degree of support or even understanding of the goals of the project?
Because they are giving up their free time trying to help the project. That demonstrates their support.
Assume good faith does not demand we ignore the obvious.
A person with zero article edits is not giving their time to support the project, unless of course they explain otherwise.
We frequently have people come by to simply argue that their position must be supported by the project... they do this fully with good faith because, of course, their ideas are without flaw... but with either bad judgment or without allegiance to our goals. So we say "Thank you for your contribution" and we place it in the appropriate bit bucket.
This is the same reason we dont give protection, blocking, and deletion to every anonymous user at their first moment of access.