It is difficult to do accurate procedure when there are large numbers of items, most of them totally unworthy. It's like traffic court. At any such review, after looking at a certain number, people get into a really foul mood and tend to express it.
This sort of thing affects teachers also, and most have worked out some routine to minimize the effect, such as grading question one for everybody first & only then doing question two; thats why many use multiple choice tests, even if they're less accurate. But there the students are very ready to appeal, and know how.
The immediate solution is for more people to take an interest, and appeal informally first. and then ask others, and then formally when necessary.--but only what is necessary, lest the problems escalate. Besides DRV--which I do not recommend at present-- there's ANB if someone is really unreasonable. The sure way to perpetuate the present situation is to give up and tolerate real abuse.
The longer term way is to devise more narrowly directed rapid procedure, and fairer procedure for other problems. I suggest it will be easier to get such change if real problems are called to wider attention. -- DGG
On 1/27/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
That would be a cynical way of looking at it. There's no core policy issue at stake, the reason for deletion was a poor one. We're just responding to public criticism by taking a token step in the right direction.
Indeed. And even if this particular website _does_ turn out to be not particularly notable (I haven't done much checking myself), the proper way to deal with that IMO would be to redirect to the article on its parent company [[Interbrand]] and perhaps add a section on it there. Everyone wins.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l