I have just deleted an article, [[Porchesia]]. Any admins are welcome to read the history. It was created in November.
Problem is, there is no such place.
Hmmm.
Danny
Let's mkae a new speedy criterion: if there's no sources, nuke it. With fire.
On 9/30/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I have just deleted an article, [[Porchesia]]. Any admins are welcome to read the history. It was created in November.
Problem is, there is no such place.
Hmmm.
Danny _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 9/30/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Let's mkae a new speedy criterion: if there's no sources, nuke it. With fire.
On 9/30/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I have just deleted an article, [[Porchesia]]. Any admins are welcome to read the history. It was created in November.
Problem is, there is no such place.
Hmmm.
Danny
Are you suggesting that this is the proper solution to any {{unsourced}} article?
Well, if we make it a new criterion, we shouldn't apply it retroactively. I understand there was a time when sources didn't mean as much.
As for the unsourced articles that currently exist, we could do some very long PROD deal with it -- articles tagged as having zero sources have three months to get at least ONE SOURCE for any part of the article before it qualifies for speedy. That's a generous amount of time.
On 9/30/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/30/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Let's mkae a new speedy criterion: if there's no sources, nuke it. With fire.
On 9/30/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I have just deleted an article, [[Porchesia]]. Any admins are welcome
to
read the history. It was created in November.
Problem is, there is no such place.
Hmmm.
Danny
Are you suggesting that this is the proper solution to any {{unsourced}} article?
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, We should before we want to even consider policies whereby sources are required consider what it would do to other projects. Many of the other projects do not have the maturity to follow the lead of the English Wikipedia they do not have sufficient content and burdening the content creation with this zeal would put a damper on the creation of new content. The idea that the English language sources are universally good is problematic as well.
We should also consider how much work it is to source all the unsourced articles. I assume that the amount of time involved is such that it is not even feasible to source all English articles that do not have sources in half a year. When an article has one source, it does not follow that the article is sufficiently sourced. Uncompletely sourced articles are as bad or worse than articles that have not been sourced at all.
I am afraid I could not disagree with you more.
Thanks, GerardM
James Hare wrote:
Well, if we make it a new criterion, we shouldn't apply it retroactively. I understand there was a time when sources didn't mean as much.
As for the unsourced articles that currently exist, we could do some very long PROD deal with it -- articles tagged as having zero sources have three months to get at least ONE SOURCE for any part of the article before it qualifies for speedy. That's a generous amount of time.
On 9/30/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/30/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Let's mkae a new speedy criterion: if there's no sources, nuke it. With fire.
On 9/30/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I have just deleted an article, [[Porchesia]]. Any admins are welcome
to
read the history. It was created in November.
Problem is, there is no such place.
Hmmm.
Danny
On 9/30/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Let's mkae a new speedy criterion: if there's no sources, nuke it. With fire.
Most of our articles do not have sources. Even the extream deletionists would regard that standard as unreasonable.
On 9/30/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Let's mkae a new speedy criterion: if there's no sources, nuke it. With fire.
'''Porchesia''' is an island off the coast of [[Syria]] and [[Lebanon]]. It is ruled by Lebanese government. [1]
[1] Cassidy, Daniel. Porchesia: History of a Little-Known Island. Los Angeles: Cambridge and Boston Press, 2005.
Erik's point here is completely valid.
The problem in this case is not really "no sources". The problem should be viewed as more general. "It is possible to hoax wikipedia by writing something that sounds plausible."
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 9/30/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Let's mkae a new speedy criterion: if there's no sources, nuke it. With fire.
'''Porchesia''' is an island off the coast of [[Syria]] and [[Lebanon]]. It is ruled by Lebanese government. [1]
[1] Cassidy, Daniel. Porchesia: History of a Little-Known Island. Los Angeles: Cambridge and Boston Press, 2005.
Erik also made a good point when he pointed out that bullshit and some real quality are mixed together... I move for implementation of that long-awaited revision labelling feature.
On 10/1/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Erik's point here is completely valid.
The problem in this case is not really "no sources". The problem should be viewed as more general. "It is possible to hoax wikipedia by writing something that sounds plausible."
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 9/30/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Let's mkae a new speedy criterion: if there's no sources, nuke it. With fire.
'''Porchesia''' is an island off the coast of [[Syria]] and [[Lebanon]]. It is ruled by Lebanese government. [1]
[1] Cassidy, Daniel. Porchesia: History of a Little-Known Island. Los Angeles: Cambridge and Boston Press, 2005.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10/1/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Erik's point here is completely valid.
The problem in this case is not really "no sources". The problem should be viewed as more general. "It is possible to hoax wikipedia by writing something that sounds plausible."
Solving that problem, without decimating the encyclopedia, would be such an enormous undertaking. Given a reasonably literal interpretation it's talking about not just matching the accuracy of the New York Times or Britannica (for instance), but blowing it away.
In other words, I love it. And I see now how it *is* a Foundation issue. Not just because it potentially affects multiple projects, which it does, but also because it requires a different type of thinking from that of making incremental changes to something that already works fairly well.
I hope the members of the Foundation are aware of how big of an undertaking this is. I hope that the planning can be conducted in a very open fashion, and not just thrust upon the community in an announcment that X was decided/created/whatever. I hope this because if it isn't conducted in this manner, it probably isn't going to work.
Anthony
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 9/30/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Let's mkae a new speedy criterion: if there's no sources, nuke it. With fire.
'''Porchesia''' is an island off the coast of [[Syria]] and [[Lebanon]]. It is ruled by Lebanese government. [1]
[1] Cassidy, Daniel. Porchesia: History of a Little-Known Island. Los Angeles: Cambridge and Boston Press, 2005.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, September 30, 2006 19:35, daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I have just deleted an article, [[Porchesia]]. Any admins are welcome to read the history. It was created in November.
As a comparison, something that got dealt with earlier this year - where there were inbound and outbound links but nobody (ie no regular editor) had taken a look at the article; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gransha&direction=prev&old...
This became the subject of a media event in Northern Ireland when the local politician discovered that - according to us - he was in the middle of a major terrorist area. In fact it was and remains a very quiet area; the article had basically been created and edited to extremes by local schoolkids, but because it wasn't on anyone's watchlist it didn't get 'caught'.
The issue is, if an article survives the 10-30 minutes it remains on 'new articles' it is likely to stick around unless you happen across it while taking a random-article-walk. How we deal with articles 'getting away from us' like the Gransha one did though I do not know ...
Alison Wheeler
I do agree with Gerad's ideas, but I also think this is not the place to be discussing what en.WP speedy deletion criteria should or should not be. I have heard en.WP has an entire mailing list all to itself.
Birgitte SB
--Gerad's message-- Hoi, We should before we want to even consider policies whereby sources are required consider what it would do to other projects. Many of the other projects do not have the maturity to follow the lead of the English Wikipedia they do not have sufficient content and burdening the content creation with this zeal would put a damper on the creation of new content. The idea that the English language sources are universally good is problematic as well.
We should also consider how much work it is to source all the unsourced articles. I assume that the amount of time involved is such that it is not even feasible to source all English articles that do not have sources in half a year. When an article has one source, it does not follow that the article is sufficiently sourced. Uncompletely sourced articles are as bad or worse than articles that have not been sourced at all.
I am afraid I could not disagree with you more.
Thanks, GerardM
James Hare wrote:
Well, if we make it a new criterion, we shouldn't
apply it retroactively. I
understand there was a time when sources didn't mean
as much.
As for the unsourced articles that currently exist,
we could do some very
long PROD deal with it -- articles tagged as having
zero sources have three
months to get at least ONE SOURCE for any part of
the article before it
qualifies for speedy. That's a generous amount of
time.
On 9/30/06, George Herbert
george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/30/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com
wrote:
Let's mkae a new speedy criterion: if there's no
sources, nuke it. With
fire.
On 9/30/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com
wrote:
I have just deleted an article, [[Porchesia]].
Any admins are welcome
to
read the history. It was created in November.
Problem is, there is no such place.
Hmmm.
Danny
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Yeah... I was wondering meself why Danny posted this English Wikipedia info on the Foundation List.
On 9/30/06, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
I do agree with Gerad's ideas, but I also think this is not the place to be discussing what en.WP speedy deletion criteria should or should not be. I have heard en.WP has an entire mailing list all to itself.
Birgitte SB
--Gerad's message-- Hoi, We should before we want to even consider policies whereby sources are required consider what it would do to other projects. Many of the other projects do not have the maturity to follow the lead of the English Wikipedia they do not have sufficient content and burdening the content creation with this zeal would put a damper on the creation of new content. The idea that the English language sources are universally good is problematic as well.
We should also consider how much work it is to source all the unsourced articles. I assume that the amount of time involved is such that it is not even feasible to source all English articles that do not have sources in half a year. When an article has one source, it does not follow that the article is sufficiently sourced. Uncompletely sourced articles are as bad or worse than articles that have not been sourced at all.
I am afraid I could not disagree with you more.
Thanks, GerardM
James Hare wrote:
Well, if we make it a new criterion, we shouldn't
apply it retroactively. I
understand there was a time when sources didn't mean
as much.
As for the unsourced articles that currently exist,
we could do some very
long PROD deal with it -- articles tagged as having
zero sources have three
months to get at least ONE SOURCE for any part of
the article before it
qualifies for speedy. That's a generous amount of
time.
On 9/30/06, George Herbert
george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/30/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com
wrote:
Let's mkae a new speedy criterion: if there's no
sources, nuke it. With
fire.
On 9/30/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com
wrote:
I have just deleted an article, [[Porchesia]].
Any admins are welcome
to
read the history. It was created in November.
Problem is, there is no such place.
Hmmm.
Danny
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/l
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Does it matter? Can we just end the thread without pinning the blame on anyone. It is not just this one thread, I had just noticed the en.WP conversations on a major increase lately.
Birgitte SB
--- James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah... I was wondering meself why Danny posted this English Wikipedia info on the Foundation List.
On 9/30/06, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
I do agree with Gerad's ideas, but I also think
this
is not the place to be discussing what en.WP
speedy
deletion criteria should or should not be. I have heard en.WP has an entire mailing list all to
itself.
Birgitte SB
--Gerad's message-- Hoi, We should before we want to even consider policies whereby sources are required consider what it would do to other
projects.
Many of the other projects do not have the maturity to follow the
lead
of the English Wikipedia they do not have sufficient content and burdening the content creation with this zeal would put a damper on the creation of new content. The idea that the English language
sources
are universally good is problematic as well.
We should also consider how much work it is to
source
all the unsourced articles. I assume that the amount of time
involved is
such that it is not even feasible to source all English articles
that
do not have sources in half a year. When an article has one source, it does not follow that the article is sufficiently sourced. Uncompletely sourced articles are as bad or worse than articles that
have
not been sourced at all.
I am afraid I could not disagree with you more.
Thanks, GerardM
James Hare wrote:
Well, if we make it a new criterion, we
shouldn't
apply it retroactively. I
understand there was a time when sources didn't
mean
as much.
As for the unsourced articles that currently
exist,
we could do some very
long PROD deal with it -- articles tagged as
having
zero sources have three
months to get at least ONE SOURCE for any part
of
the article before it
qualifies for speedy. That's a generous amount
of
time.
On 9/30/06, George Herbert
george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/30/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com
wrote:
Let's mkae a new speedy criterion: if there's
no
sources, nuke it. With
fire.
On 9/30/06, daniwo59@aol.com
wrote:
I have just deleted an article,
[[Porchesia]].
Any admins are welcome
to
read the history. It was created in November.
Problem is, there is no such place.
Hmmm.
Danny
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/l
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 9/30/06, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Does it matter? Can we just end the thread without pinning the blame on anyone. It is not just this one thread, I had just noticed the en.WP conversations on a major increase lately.
Rather than dismissing the discussion why not tell those of us less connected with the other language wikis how this problem has been completely solved [1] on those subprojects.
(1) I must assume that this is totally solved everywhere except enwiki for you to be claiming that this thread is an offtopic enwiki only matter.
en.WP is the biggest WP that's why there is such a "problem". Smaller WP feel less need for speedy deletion and could handle this kind of articles with standard afd procedure.
(Still this thread should belong to wikipedia-l as it's a WP matter not a foundation matter.)
--Lorenzarius
On 10/1/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/30/06, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Does it matter? Can we just end the thread without pinning the blame on anyone. It is not just this one thread, I had just noticed the en.WP conversations on a major increase lately.
Rather than dismissing the discussion why not tell those of us less connected with the other language wikis how this problem has been completely solved [1] on those subprojects.
(1) I must assume that this is totally solved everywhere except enwiki for you to be claiming that this thread is an offtopic enwiki only matter.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 9/30/06, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Does it matter? Can we just end the thread without pinning the blame on anyone. It is not just this one thread, I had just noticed the en.WP conversations on a major increase lately.
Rather than dismissing the discussion why not tell those of us less connected with the other language wikis how this problem has been completely solved [1] on those subprojects.
(1) I must assume that this is totally solved everywhere except enwiki for you to be claiming that this thread is an offtopic enwiki only matter.
Hoi, For this to be relevant, there are two other mailing list that are more oportune: the en-wikipedia-l and the wikipedia-l. This list is the foundation list and the subject matter is hardly relevant for those who do not want to get swamped here with things that are too project specific. Thanks, GerardM
On 10/1/06, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, For this to be relevant, there are two other mailing list that are more oportune: the en-wikipedia-l and the wikipedia-l. This list is the foundation list and the subject matter is hardly relevant for those who do not want to get swamped here with things that are too project specific.
I think it is odd that you don't think that another example of a Wikimedia wiki distributing a hoax unchecked for months is uninteresting.
Yes, the enwiki speedy deletion aspects of the thread were offtopic, but it's rare that we have a thread which runs without offtopic interjections.
In any case, I think this is interesting at a global level because the Wiki's at greatest risk of collecting garbage are often the ones with the least activity.
After seeing that one of the Wikipedias had its main page changed to say "Welcome to the Runescape trading forum", I wondered if it would be useful to setup a bot to check recent changes on all the smaller wikis for insertions of English text. .. With the hope that the worst of the junk on small wikis would be in inappropriate languages.
It would be really nice if we had a single recentchanges page that aggregated all the low activity wikis.
--- Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
In any case, I think this is interesting at a global level because the Wiki's at greatest risk of collecting garbage are often the ones with the least activity.
After seeing that one of the Wikipedias had its main page changed to say "Welcome to the Runescape trading forum", I wondered if it would be useful to setup a bot to check recent changes on all the smaller wikis for insertions of English text. .. With the hope that the worst of the junk on small wikis would be in inappropriate languages.
It would be really nice if we had a single recentchanges page that aggregated all the low activity wikis.
I think this is a great idea. Is it possible to set up several RC bots (in different wiki's) to work in a single RC channel? If this could be done with the bots displaying a snippet of any added text, it should be easy to recognize any english which does not belong.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Another thing we could do is get something like Tawkerbot2 (for those who don't know, Tawkerbot2 is the most prolific anti-vandal bot) and have it set up for all those tiny, pathetic wikis.
On 10/1/06, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
In any case, I think this is interesting at a global level because the Wiki's at greatest risk of collecting garbage are often the ones with the least activity.
After seeing that one of the Wikipedias had its main page changed to say "Welcome to the Runescape trading forum", I wondered if it would be useful to setup a bot to check recent changes on all the smaller wikis for insertions of English text. .. With the hope that the worst of the junk on small wikis would be in inappropriate languages.
It would be really nice if we had a single recentchanges page that aggregated all the low activity wikis.
I think this is a great idea. Is it possible to set up several RC bots (in different wiki's) to work in a single RC channel? If this could be done with the bots displaying a snippet of any added text, it should be easy to recognize any english which does not belong.
Birgitte SB
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, Considering that you think tiny equals pathetic, I would not trust it near any of them. Thanks, GerardM
James Hare wrote:
Another thing we could do is get something like Tawkerbot2 (for those who don't know, Tawkerbot2 is the most prolific anti-vandal bot) and have it set up for all those tiny, pathetic wikis.
On 10/1/06, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
In any case, I think this is interesting at a global level because the Wiki's at greatest risk of collecting garbage are often the ones with the least activity.
After seeing that one of the Wikipedias had its main page changed to say "Welcome to the Runescape trading forum", I wondered if it would be useful to setup a bot to check recent changes on all the smaller wikis for insertions of English text. .. With the hope that the worst of the junk on small wikis would be in inappropriate languages.
It would be really nice if we had a single recentchanges page that aggregated all the low activity wikis.
I think this is a great idea. Is it possible to set up several RC bots (in different wiki's) to work in a single RC channel? If this could be done with the bots displaying a snippet of any added text, it should be easy to recognize any english which does not belong.
Birgitte SB
On 01/10/06, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
It would be really nice if we had a single recentchanges page that aggregated all the low activity wikis.
I think this is a great idea. Is it possible to set up several RC bots (in different wiki's) to work in a single RC channel?
There's an RSS feed for RC, isn't there? Aggregating RSS feeds is easy.
- d.
This is not a problem. The existing pgkbot IRC monitoring framework already allows each bot to report to multiple channels simultaneously, so a bot could report to its "home" channel, as well as to a centralized channel, if needs warrant. This data is already being broadcast on Wikimedia's IRC server, so there isn't anything to modify server-side. All that you need is poke a few users on IRC to change their bots' settings.
Titoxd.
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Birgitte SB Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 12:11 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Porchesia
--- Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
In any case, I think this is interesting at a global level because the Wiki's at greatest risk of collecting garbage are often the ones with the least activity.
After seeing that one of the Wikipedias had its main page changed to say "Welcome to the Runescape trading forum", I wondered if it would be useful to setup a bot to check recent changes on all the smaller wikis for insertions of English text. .. With the hope that the worst of the junk on small wikis would be in inappropriate languages.
It would be really nice if we had a single recentchanges page that aggregated all the low activity wikis.
I think this is a great idea. Is it possible to set up several RC bots (in different wiki's) to work in a single RC channel? If this could be done with the bots displaying a snippet of any added text, it should be easy to recognize any english which does not belong.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
pgkbot doesn't read individual edits though, it only reports one that fail a filter of the rc channel feed. We'd need to change it if we want to flag content of edits, and it would use a lot of bandwidth (though a couple on the smallest WPs wouldnt be too bad).
On 10/1/06, Titoxd@Wikimedia titoxd.wikimedia@gmail.com wrote:
This is not a problem. The existing pgkbot IRC monitoring framework already allows each bot to report to multiple channels simultaneously, so a bot could report to its "home" channel, as well as to a centralized channel, if needs warrant. This data is already being broadcast on Wikimedia's IRC server, so there isn't anything to modify server-side. All that you need is poke a few users on IRC to change their bots' settings.
Titoxd.
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Birgitte SB Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 12:11 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Porchesia
--- Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
In any case, I think this is interesting at a global level because the Wiki's at greatest risk of collecting garbage are often the ones with the least activity.
After seeing that one of the Wikipedias had its main page changed to say "Welcome to the Runescape trading forum", I wondered if it would be useful to setup a bot to check recent changes on all the smaller wikis for insertions of English text. .. With the hope that the worst of the junk on small wikis would be in inappropriate languages.
It would be really nice if we had a single recentchanges page that aggregated all the low activity wikis.
I think this is a great idea. Is it possible to set up several RC bots (in different wiki's) to work in a single RC channel? If this could be done with the bots displaying a snippet of any added text, it should be easy to recognize any english which does not belong.
Birgitte SB
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--- Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/30/06, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Does it matter? Can we just end the thread
without
pinning the blame on anyone. It is not just this
one
thread, I had just noticed the en.WP conversations
on
a major increase lately.
Rather than dismissing the discussion why not tell those of us less connected with the other language wikis how this problem has been completely solved [1] on those subprojects.
(1) I must assume that this is totally solved everywhere except enwiki for you to be claiming that this thread is an offtopic enwiki only matter.
The discussion of a specific aspect of en,WP's speedy deletion policy should not happen at foundation-l. Communities make their own policies. If someone wants compare and contrast policies from diferent communities here that is fine. Or even discuss more generally how problems are handled. But that is *not* what was happening and the thread was well-developed. However if no else objects to developing en.WP policies I will say no more about it.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org