Hi all,
I am a journalist in Goa, India and a contributor to the Wikipedia. Among other things, my interest is in ICT4D (information and communication technologies for development), and have written quite a bit on the subject.
Recently, I find some entries which I initiated coming in for 'speedy deletion', which is kind of discouraging. Take the example below, of a South African group whose work I know, and certainly deserves a Wikipedia entry.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:_LQK2Uo3l5AJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ungan...
Could I request a closer check before deleting entries, specially deserving ones (which may require a few more details and inputs, but surely not, in my view, deletion!)
Regards, FN
Recently, I find some entries which I initiated coming in for 'speedy deletion', which is kind of discouraging. Take the example below, of a South African group whose work I know, and certainly deserves a Wikipedia entry.
The problem with that entry is that you didn't give any indication of why the organisation is important. There are enormous numbers of non-profits in existence, we can't give them all articles, so when writing a new article about one you need to show that it is more important than your typical non-profit.
On 4/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Recently, I find some entries which I initiated coming in for 'speedy deletion', which is kind of discouraging. Take the example below, of a South African group whose work I know, and certainly deserves a Wikipedia entry.
The problem with that entry is that you didn't give any indication of why the organisation is important. There are enormous numbers of non-profits in existence, we can't give them all articles, so when writing a new article about one you need to show that it is more important than your typical non-profit.
Whysoever can we not "give them all articles"?
Ooh, I forgot the Great Allocation of Virtual Space decree.
"Give" them articles? How noble.
Sheesh.
The articles were nominated for speedy deletion because the nominator thought they were not notable. Sadly, systemic bias influences the nominator's judgement of notability. Articles on Singaporean topics get nominated for deletion all the time.
2007/4/11, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org:
Hi all,
I am a journalist in Goa, India and a contributor to the Wikipedia. Among other things, my interest is in ICT4D (information and communication technologies for development), and have written quite a bit on the subject.
Recently, I find some entries which I initiated coming in for 'speedy deletion', which is kind of discouraging. Take the example below, of a South African group whose work I know, and certainly deserves a Wikipedia entry.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:_LQK2Uo3l5AJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ungan...
Could I request a closer check before deleting entries, specially deserving ones (which may require a few more details and inputs, but surely not, in my view, deletion!)
Regards, FN
FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please) http://fn.goa-india.org http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com Konkani Wikipedia (under incubation) needs your help! http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kok
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
The articles were nominated for speedy deletion because the nominator thought they were not notable. Sadly, systemic bias influences the nominator's judgement of notability. Articles on Singaporean topics get nominated for deletion all the time.
Worse than that, this article clearly meets all notibility requirements. Simply type it into Google. I am restoring immediately.
Frederick, I do have a suggestion. When you see any one of these delete messages POST IN DETAIL ON THE TALK PAGE. If you do not, someone coming across the page has no information on which to base their decision.
Maury
_________________________________________________________________ Check Out Our List Of Trendy Restaurants. You'll Eat It Up! http://local.live.com/?mkt=en-ca/?v=2&cid=A6D6BDB4586E357F!378
Thanks all. But I did post in the talk page. I mentioned my ongoing work in this field. Three entries were nominated for speedy deletion. Two were not. And one was. The logic seems a bit hard to fathom. Anyway, I think the Wikipedia is doing a great job. Keep on at it. FN
On 12/04/07, Maury Markowitz maury_markowitz@hotmail.com wrote:
The articles were nominated for speedy deletion because the nominator thought they were not notable. Sadly, systemic bias influences the nominator's judgement of notability. Articles on Singaporean topics get nominated for deletion all the time.
Worse than that, this article clearly meets all notibility requirements. Simply type it into Google. I am restoring immediately.
Frederick, I do have a suggestion. When you see any one of these delete messages POST IN DETAIL ON THE TALK PAGE. If you do not, someone coming across the page has no information on which to base their decision.
Maury
Check Out Our List Of Trendy Restaurants. You'll Eat It Up! http://local.live.com/?mkt=en-ca/?v=2&cid=A6D6BDB4586E357F!378
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
You could also use {{hangon}}.
I hope people will not make quick notability judgements influenced by systemic bias.
2007/4/12, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org:
Thanks all. But I did post in the talk page. I mentioned my ongoing work in this field. Three entries were nominated for speedy deletion. Two were not. And one was. The logic seems a bit hard to fathom. Anyway, I think the Wikipedia is doing a great job. Keep on at it. FN
On 12/04/07, Maury Markowitz maury_markowitz@hotmail.com wrote:
The articles were nominated for speedy deletion because the nominator thought they were not notable. Sadly, systemic bias influences the nominator's judgement of notability. Articles on Singaporean topics get nominated for deletion all the time.
Worse than that, this article clearly meets all notibility requirements. Simply type it into Google. I am restoring immediately.
Frederick, I do have a suggestion. When you see any one of these delete messages POST IN DETAIL ON THE TALK PAGE. If you do not, someone coming across the page has no information on which to base their decision.
Maury
Check Out Our List Of Trendy Restaurants. You'll Eat It Up! http://local.live.com/?mkt=en-ca/?v=2&cid=A6D6BDB4586E357F!378
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please) http://fn.goa-india.org http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com Konkani Wikipedia (under incubation) needs your help! http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kok
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
People will make incorrect speedy judgments based on many kinds of bias, and also just out of carelessness or recklessness. In the last few few weeks on en WP, there have been speedies of UK High Court Judges, American college presidents, landmark novels, major sports figures whose careers were thought hoaxes, and so on. The error rate seems to be about 1%, but that can amount to 10 a day.
Speedy is essential for keeping up with the vandalism, but it exemplifies the problems caused by permitting any editor to do anything -- and by rapid moving unilateral process without oversight. David Goodman DGG
On 4/11/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
You could also use {{hangon}}.
I hope people will not make quick notability judgements influenced by systemic bias.
2007/4/12, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org:
Thanks all. But I did post in the talk page. I mentioned my ongoing work in this field. Three entries were nominated for speedy deletion. Two were not. And one was. The logic seems a bit hard to fathom. Anyway, I think the Wikipedia is doing a great job. Keep on at it. FN
On 12/04/07, Maury Markowitz maury_markowitz@hotmail.com wrote:
The articles were nominated for speedy deletion because the nominator thought they were not notable. Sadly, systemic bias influences the nominator's judgement of notability. Articles on Singaporean topics get nominated for deletion all the time.
Worse than that, this article clearly meets all notibility requirements. Simply type it into Google. I am restoring immediately.
Frederick, I do have a suggestion. When you see any one of these delete messages POST IN DETAIL ON THE TALK PAGE. If you do not, someone coming across the page has no information on which to base their decision.
Maury
Check Out Our List Of Trendy Restaurants. You'll Eat It Up! http://local.live.com/?mkt=en-ca/?v=2&cid=A6D6BDB4586E357F!378
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please) http://fn.goa-india.org http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com Konkani Wikipedia (under incubation) needs your help! http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kok
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
So what are we going to do about it?
Mark
On 11/04/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
People will make incorrect speedy judgments based on many kinds of bias, and also just out of carelessness or recklessness. In the last few few weeks on en WP, there have been speedies of UK High Court Judges, American college presidents, landmark novels, major sports figures whose careers were thought hoaxes, and so on. The error rate seems to be about 1%, but that can amount to 10 a day.
Speedy is essential for keeping up with the vandalism, but it exemplifies the problems caused by permitting any editor to do anything -- and by rapid moving unilateral process without oversight. David Goodman DGG
On 4/11/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
You could also use {{hangon}}.
I hope people will not make quick notability judgements influenced by systemic bias.
2007/4/12, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org:
Thanks all. But I did post in the talk page. I mentioned my ongoing work in this field. Three entries were nominated for speedy deletion. Two were not. And one was. The logic seems a bit hard to fathom. Anyway, I think the Wikipedia is doing a great job. Keep on at it. FN
On 12/04/07, Maury Markowitz maury_markowitz@hotmail.com wrote:
The articles were nominated for speedy deletion because the nominator thought they were not notable. Sadly, systemic bias influences the nominator's judgement of notability. Articles on Singaporean topics get nominated for deletion all the time.
Worse than that, this article clearly meets all notibility requirements. Simply type it into Google. I am restoring immediately.
Frederick, I do have a suggestion. When you see any one of these delete messages POST IN DETAIL ON THE TALK PAGE. If you do not, someone coming across the page has no information on which to base their decision.
Maury
Check Out Our List Of Trendy Restaurants. You'll Eat It Up! http://local.live.com/?mkt=en-ca/?v=2&cid=A6D6BDB4586E357F!378
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please) http://fn.goa-india.org http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com Konkani Wikipedia (under incubation) needs your help! http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kok
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
There are discussion on en at Wikipedia talk:Deletion reform and at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy and at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
In summary, various things have been suggested: Technical: a/ narrowing the criteria for A7, notability, which is the worst of the problem b/ providing for a holding period on the pattern of PROD c/ requiring a minimum period after creation d/ categorizing them better, again after the manner of PRODSUM e/ having an intermediate class between speedy and Prod.
Organizational: a/ encouraging and facilitating deletion review, and encouraging more participants b/ listing all speedy deletions in an easy to review format showing the person placing them and the deleting admin
Interpersonal: a/ informal individual feedback about deleting admins & informal encouragement to ask for feedback b/ informal individual encouragement to go to deletion review
Formal a/ individually tracking decisions, and asking for process against over-active deletors and admins, on the grounds that it amounts to vandalism or abuse of power. ==and of course doing these in an organized way, which I am reluctant to start discussing at this point.
and there are an additional 2 problems, so tricky I want to mention them separately a/ An admin can single handedly delete immediately without listing first for speedy, and they do--I was incredulous when i first heard this was possible b/ An admin can delete during the process of an AfD, by unilaterally deciding to close early, which is often done after only 1 or two voices is heard. b'/ and in fact, Anyone can list for speedy during the progress of an AfD.
but, and this will be the counter-arguement to all, and it is a very good one, there is a very large number of total garbage that must be deleted as soon as possible to avoid encouraging it.
Note that I have omitted a few dozen suggestions on those pages that I think not quite to the point.
I'd like opinions, especially from those with extensive experience in the present system and who support it. Actual discussion should of course take place on the policy pages mentioned.
David Goodman DGG
On 4/12/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
So what are we going to do about it?
Mark
On 11/04/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
People will make incorrect speedy judgments based on many kinds of bias, and also just out of carelessness or recklessness. In the last few few weeks on en WP, there have been speedies of UK High Court Judges, American college presidents, landmark novels, major sports figures whose careers were thought hoaxes, and so on. The error rate seems to be about 1%, but that can amount to 10 a day.
Speedy is essential for keeping up with the vandalism, but it exemplifies the problems caused by permitting any editor to do anything -- and by rapid moving unilateral process without oversight. David Goodman DGG
On 4/11/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
You could also use {{hangon}}.
I hope people will not make quick notability judgements influenced by systemic bias.
2007/4/12, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org:
Thanks all. But I did post in the talk page. I mentioned my ongoing work in this field. Three entries were nominated for speedy deletion. Two were not. And one was. The logic seems a bit hard to fathom. Anyway, I think the Wikipedia is doing a great job. Keep on at it. FN
On 12/04/07, Maury Markowitz maury_markowitz@hotmail.com wrote:
The articles were nominated for speedy deletion because the nominator thought they were not notable. Sadly, systemic bias influences the nominator's judgement of notability. Articles on Singaporean topics get nominated for deletion all the time.
Worse than that, this article clearly meets all notibility requirements. Simply type it into Google. I am restoring immediately.
Frederick, I do have a suggestion. When you see any one of these delete messages POST IN DETAIL ON THE TALK PAGE. If you do not, someone coming across the page has no information on which to base their decision.
Maury
Check Out Our List Of Trendy Restaurants. You'll Eat It Up! http://local.live.com/?mkt=en-ca/?v=2&cid=A6D6BDB4586E357F!378
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please) http://fn.goa-india.org http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com Konkani Wikipedia (under incubation) needs your help! http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kok
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
It may be convenient, but it would be hard to say it is necessary. It resembles the techniques of traffic enforcement I have heard exist in some countries, where the traffic policeman gives the ticket, decides on guilt, and collects the fine. It also resembles some recent practices in my own country authorized by the Patriot Act. They too are convenient, and save time. David g.
On 4/12/07, David Monniaux David.Monniaux@free.fr wrote:
David Goodman a écrit :
a/ An admin can single handedly delete immediately without listing first for speedy, and they do--I was incredulous when i first heard this was possible
This is necessary given he huge amount of crap that gets added.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
David Goodman a écrit :
It may be convenient, but it would be hard to say it is necessary. It resembles the techniques of traffic enforcement I have heard exist in some countries, where the traffic policeman gives the ticket, decides on guilt, and collects the fine. It also resembles some recent practices in my own country authorized by the Patriot Act. They too are convenient, and save time. David g.
This comparison is, sorry, overblown and irrelevant.
Wikipedia is not a judicial system. Deleting an article on Wikipedia harms nobody, sends nobody to jail or prison, doesn't coerce people to pay money, and does not spy on their private life. Everything may be reverted if necessary.
There has been discussion (on a private list for OTRS operators) about the problem of articles about non notable people, companies etc. that nobody gives a damn about, get vandalized, and cause us hardships. By "hardships" I mean that the queue of messages for complaints about the English-speaking is constantly in the hundreds and that the volunteers cannot cope with them.
In particular, it is just plain impossible to deal with those messages without the power to delete articles about evidently non notable people or companies.
My case is that it is not possible in a diverse and multi-cultural globe to easily decide who or what is "non-notable". In particular, may I draw attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ungana-Afrika and say that I know these guys to be doing some amazing work in the ICT-for-development sphere. Question is: how would you know whether to trust my judgement or not? Also, are the tests for "non-notability" sufficient for niche spheres or non-English language groups (we have discussed this earlier). FN
On 12/04/07, David Monniaux David.Monniaux@free.fr wrote:
David Goodman a écrit :
It may be convenient, but it would be hard to say it is necessary. It resembles the techniques of traffic enforcement I have heard exist in some countries, where the traffic policeman gives the ticket, decides on guilt, and collects the fine. It also resembles some recent practices in my own country authorized by the Patriot Act. They too are convenient, and save time. David g.
This comparison is, sorry, overblown and irrelevant.
Wikipedia is not a judicial system. Deleting an article on Wikipedia harms nobody, sends nobody to jail or prison, doesn't coerce people to pay money, and does not spy on their private life. Everything may be reverted if necessary.
There has been discussion (on a private list for OTRS operators) about the problem of articles about non notable people, companies etc. that nobody gives a damn about, get vandalized, and cause us hardships. By "hardships" I mean that the queue of messages for complaints about the English-speaking is constantly in the hundreds and that the volunteers cannot cope with them.
In particular, it is just plain impossible to deal with those messages without the power to delete articles about evidently non notable people or companies.
Frederick "FN" Noronha a écrit :
My case is that it is not possible in a diverse and multi-cultural globe to easily decide who or what is "non-notable". In particular, may I draw attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ungana-Afrika and say that I know these guys to be doing some amazing work in the ICT-for-development sphere. Question is: how would you know whether to trust my judgement or not?
As with many things on Wikipedia, things would be easier if people stuck to areas that they kno about.
Lately, I have edited articles about French government issues on en:; they contained inaccuracies due to the use of third-hand media such as CNN (CNN copying information from the French media and communiqués which were translations on communiqués etc.) whereas direct, first-hand information was available as long as one could read French.
The same happened when some people who apparently didn't know anything about the issues began to question the "left wing" and "right wing" qualifications used in articles on French politics, whereas, as it is even said in some articles, these reflect the usual classification of the French media. (I doubt that the same people would have questioned the use of "liberal" for Hillary Clinton.)
The solution is simple: if you don't know about what happens in country X (beyond some surface knowledge through the media), just don't touch articles dealing with it, and especially don't delete articles.
On 4/12/07, David Monniaux David.Monniaux@free.fr wrote:
The solution is simple: if you don't know about what happens in country X (beyond some surface knowledge through the media), just don't touch articles dealing with it, and especially don't delete articles.
How about this solution: if you don't know about what happens in country X, delete anything that contradicts your misconceptions or anything you've never heard of.
Since that's what people are doing.
I can just see it now:
"France is a country in the European Union. It has berets, cheese, and the Eiffel Tower, which is in Paris, France's only city. Its most famous resident is Pepe Le Pew."
On 12/04/07, Frederick FN Noronha fredericknoronha@gmail.com wrote:
Also, are the tests for "non-notability" sufficient for niche spheres or non-English language groups (we have discussed this earlier). FN
No - the "notability criteria" on English Wikipedia are horribly systemically biased towards US topics that a teenager on AFD would be able to Google for. Though this is a separate issue from dealing with the firehose of rubbish visible through Special:Newpages.
- d.
On 12/04/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/04/07, Frederick FN Noronha fredericknoronha@gmail.com wrote:
Also, are the tests for "non-notability" sufficient for niche spheres or non-English language groups (we have discussed this earlier). FN
No - the "notability criteria" on English Wikipedia are horribly systemically biased towards US topics that a teenager on AFD would be able to Google for. Though this is a separate issue from dealing with the firehose of rubbish visible through Special:Newpages.
BTW, you may get more useful responses asking on wikien-l than here, for an em:wp-specific matter.
- d.
Question is: how would you know whether to trust my judgement or not? Also, are the tests for "non-notability" sufficient for niche spheres or non-English language groups (we have discussed this earlier). FN
It's also terribly biased towards recent events. Covering older topics on practically anything that predates the internet is often difficult. I'm sure that had the current notability guidelines existed when I started that the CDC 8600 article would have been deleted, because at the time, all that existed about it on the 'net was a single poorly-scanned photo-of-a-photo in a PowerPoint file. But as an admin,
BYW, I see no notabilty discussion on the Ungana-Afrika talk page. Did I not undelete it or were you referring to discussion somewhere else? If you were talking about the menion on your talk page, you need to know that it was automatically generated and the user in question likely was never aware that you responded. Again, I don't expect users to be aware of these technical minutae, which is why this thread is so important.
Maury
_________________________________________________________________ Get the Kung Fu Bunny Theme pack free! http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/Themes/Messenger/Reward/Default.aspx?Loca...
It's also terribly biased towards recent events. Covering older topics on practically anything that predates the internet is often difficult. I'm sure that had the current notability guidelines existed when I started that the CDC 8600 article would have been deleted, because at the time, all that existed about it on the 'net was a single poorly-scanned photo-of-a-photo in a PowerPoint file.
Deleted, maybe, speedy deleted, no. There is an element of bias in our determination of notability, but that has nothing to do with A7.
On 12/04/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
It may be convenient, but it would be hard to say it is necessary. It resembles the techniques of traffic enforcement I have heard exist in some countries, where the traffic policeman gives the ticket, decides on guilt, and collects the fine. It also resembles some recent practices in my own country authorized by the Patriot Act. They too are convenient, and save time. David g.
But you must admit, the administrators build good autobahns.
- d.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 12:16:18PM +0100, David Gerard wrote:
On 12/04/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
It may be convenient, but it would be hard to say it is necessary. It resembles the techniques of traffic enforcement I have heard exist in some countries, where the traffic policeman gives the ticket, decides on guilt, and collects the fine. It also resembles some recent practices in my own country authorized by the Patriot Act. They too are convenient, and save time. David g.
But you must admit, the administrators build good autobahns.
- d.
And the beer ... ach!
David Gerard wrote:
On 12/04/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
It may be convenient, but it would be hard to say it is necessary. It resembles the techniques of traffic enforcement I have heard exist in some countries, where the traffic policeman gives the ticket, decides on guilt, and collects the fine. It also resembles some recent practices in my own country authorized by the Patriot Act. They too are convenient, and save time. David g.
But you must admit, the administrators build good autobahns.
And if you wait until the war is over everyone will have a Volkswagon to drive on them. :-)
Ec
David Goodman a écrit :
a/ An admin can single handedly delete immediately without listing first for speedy, and they do--I was incredulous when i first heard this was possible
Despite the objections raised from time to time about this, I fail to see the issue. I think it boils down to the generic mistrust of all administrators that certain people who are not administrators seem to harbour.
More constructively, in the event that I did want to address this issue, I can't think of any way of doing so that wouldn't result in the queue of attack pages and pure vandalism awaiting deletion frequently stretching into the thousands, rather than the hundreds we have now.
One can imagine a two-person rule; the first administrator to come across a speedyable article can't delete it, they can only tag it, and then they have to wait for *another* admiinistrator to agree with them and do the actual deletion. In practise, though, this would simply result in one administrator following another around deleting all the articles they tagged, and so would achieve nothing while tying two people up in a task that can be done at exactly the same rate by one, which on a voluntary collaborative project is not only a bad idea but a *dangerously* bad one.
One can also imagine imposing a waiting time in the manner of proposed deletions (though if this was done, we might as well abandon speedy deletion altogether and use proposed deletion instead). The obvious question at this point is just what purpose would be served by having thousands (tens of thousands, if the waiting period was anything more than a day) of pages hanging around in article space that don't need to be there. Vandalism to existing articles is reverted in seconds, the fact that it's on a new page should make no difference.
Furthermore, it is in the interest of the continued existence of the project that defamatory material, copyright violations and hate speech are removed as quickly as possible, which necessitates giving any administrator who should come across one of these pages the authority to remove it immediately. If there's always going to be a process to deal with these, extending it to cover vandalism, spam and obvious vanity articles seems to be to be merely an improvement in efficiency (and a big improvement, at that).
-Gurch
Despite the objections raised from time to time about this, I fail to see the issue. I think it boils down to the generic mistrust of all administrators that certain people who are not administrators seem to harbour.
I've been a contributer to the wiki for five years and an admin for three or four. I object to this sort of behavor, and it has nothing to do with "generic mistrust of all administrators". In fact, I'm surprised you would use this sort of blind labling as an argument. Frankly, it's more than a little insulting. And even if you don't think it is insulting, did you think this sort of comment would be helpful? You're simply dismissing the problem and blaming other people's mental states for even suggesting that there IS a problem. Have you ever tried this with your girlfriend? In my experience, it's not terribly constructive.
We need to focus on why these things happen -- and they happen a lot, I've been involved in three just this week alone. Consider a fairly typically pattern that I have seen repeated (literally) hundreds of times...
1) a new editor writes up an article
2) someone comes and drive-by tags the article, for arguments sake, let's say a prod
3A) there is a _significant_ chance that the original editor will be unaware of this. In my experience, the vast majority of new editors are unaware of the watchlist, and the HUGE majority of tagging is not indicated on the user's talk page 3B) the editor does become aware of this, but is given little or no information on what to do 3C) the editor is aware, attempts to find out what to do, and still can't figure it out
4) the article is deleted, because the user didn't do "the right thing"
Throughout this very typical pattern. And to date most of the people in this thread can't even see that this is a problem. The only answer is "well you failed to do X, so that means it falls under rule M64g, so we deleted it". How does that help? Do you think that the user is any more aware of what happened after this "explaination" than before? Did it help them avoid such problems in the future? Did it improve the wikipedia? No, no and no.
Let's get more specific. After I saw the post here I started to check out what had happened. Here is the history...
FN wrote and edited the article someone drive-by tagged it with notability tag. a form-tag was also left on FN's talk page FN replied to the tag, not realizing A) the tagger would likely not see it, and B) what to do about it FN visits the page, and notices that the tag has a comment on how to use {{holdon}} FN adds a {{holdon}}, following the only instructions he has been given the admin comes along and deletes the article anyway. no comment is left anywhere
So then _I_ tried to see what he would have had to go through to "properly respond" to the problem. The first thing I did was try to find the notability guidelines. Due to the wiki's laughable search engine, this was not exactly trivial. Then I tried reading the guidelines, which were legalistic gobblygook. After _several_minutes_ I convinced myself the article did in fact meet the guidelines. Then I tried to find out what the proper response was. I failed, utterly.
Now look back over this thread. How many posts in this thread actually attempted to help FN? How many explained the policy and why it exists? How many gave him instructions, or even a link, on how to avoid these problems in the future? Is there even one post that is remotely helpful for this new user?
Is this the sort of thing that we expect to put our users through? It certainly seems that way, because every "pro" vote to date has complained about the terrible onus on the admins. No one seemed to worry about the terrible onus on the users. Did anyone stop to consider that the wikipedia is built for the users, not the admins?
I can't think of any way of doing so that wouldn't result in the queue of attack pages and pure vandalism awaiting deletion frequently stretching into the thousands, rather than the hundreds we have now.
Specious argument. We're talking about notability, not attack pages.
One can imagine a two-person rule; the first administrator to come across a speedyable article can't delete it, they can only tag it, and then they have to wait for *another* admiinistrator to agree with them and do the actual deletion.
Did you even bother to look at the history and delete logs? I suspect not, because if you had you would be aware that _two_people_were_involved_. Someone named Betaeleven (a self-declared deletionist) tagged it, with no comment of course, not even in the checkin log. It appears they did so after simply following FN's contributions list (see the history). Two days later, after FN added the {{holdon}}, the admin Nihonjoe deleted it anyway.
I particularily liked the suggestion that FN could have put a {{holdon}} on the article, because that simply illustrates just how deep this lazyness goes. We're having a thread about lazy admining, and many of the people offering suggestions can't be bothered to even find out what actually happened? It's enough to drive one mental.
It all boils down to this: there IS a problem. The problem is lazy admining and slavish attention to the letter of the law when doing so. If one good article gets deleted by mistake as a result, that's a problem. And it's not one, its hundreds.
Ok, here's my suggestions:
In cases where tagging may result in an article, or significant portions of it, being removed for reasons other than vandalism or similar, the tagger must:
1) place a note on the editor's talk page saying the article has been tagged 2) place a note (NOT templated) on the article talk page explaining what the problem is. "failed notability" is not good enough
Any tags placed that fail to meet these can be summarily deleted. If they are not removed, at the admin's leisure, they are _not_actionable_ until someone DOES meet these criterion or does remove them. Additionally, incorrect tags, prods on NPOV or notability for instance, should be summarily removed. These would fix the vast majority of cases I come across.
Maury
_________________________________________________________________ Exercise your brain! Try Flexicon. http://games.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmemailtaglineapr...
Ok, here's my suggestions:
In cases where tagging may result in an article, or significant portions of it, being removed for reasons other than vandalism or similar, the tagger must:
- place a note on the editor's talk page saying the article has been tagged
This is often done, but not always. I'll admit to not notifying everyone whose articles I have speedy deleted. But to be honest, this would slow things down to a ridiculous extent. I do not consider this laziness. I usually put links to CSD criteria in my deletion summaries, and I have a big wide open door on my userpage saying "if you object to a deletion, message me". I will go to great lengths to explain a deletion. And I have no problem with undeleting/userfying/whatever is necessary.
- place a note (NOT templated) on the article talk page explaining what the
problem is. "failed notability" is not good enough
Any tags placed that fail to meet these can be summarily deleted. If they are not removed, at the admin's leisure, they are _not_actionable_ until someone DOES meet these criterion or does remove them. Additionally, incorrect tags, prods on NPOV or notability for instance, should be summarily removed. These would fix the vast majority of cases I come across.
Maury
Prods should always have the creator notified. I don't see how a note on the talk page could help anything--the prod tag should already include a deletion rationale. I see what you're saying though, that a prod rationale of "POV article" would not make sense to a Wikipedia newbie. What is the solution? Link to [[WP:NPOV]]? Ask editors to write in more generic language? Wikipedia policies do not always break down into easily-digestible phrases. This is an unfortunate reality.
I agree that occasionally a worthy subject will get deleted. But I also think that admins do the best they can, and if a subject is truly noteworthy its article will be recreated. I try to be cautious with what I delete (though I admit that I have and do make mistakes, but again that is what the "open door" is for). We should not add any layers to the speedy deletion process. So much rubbish is created every day and there must be a fast way of getting rid of it.
Erica
The main issue here is the speedy deletion of articles for lack of notability, not just speedy in general. If someone writes an attack page, I'm not sure we have any obligation to them, but if they write a good page that we want to delete because we don't think it's notable enough, then I feel we do have some level of obligation to them.
Mark
On 12/04/07, Erica fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, here's my suggestions:
In cases where tagging may result in an article, or significant portions of it, being removed for reasons other than vandalism or similar, the tagger must:
- place a note on the editor's talk page saying the article has been tagged
This is often done, but not always. I'll admit to not notifying everyone whose articles I have speedy deleted. But to be honest, this would slow things down to a ridiculous extent. I do not consider this laziness. I usually put links to CSD criteria in my deletion summaries, and I have a big wide open door on my userpage saying "if you object to a deletion, message me". I will go to great lengths to explain a deletion. And I have no problem with undeleting/userfying/whatever is necessary.
- place a note (NOT templated) on the article talk page explaining what the
problem is. "failed notability" is not good enough
Any tags placed that fail to meet these can be summarily deleted. If they are not removed, at the admin's leisure, they are _not_actionable_ until someone DOES meet these criterion or does remove them. Additionally, incorrect tags, prods on NPOV or notability for instance, should be summarily removed. These would fix the vast majority of cases I come across.
Maury
Prods should always have the creator notified. I don't see how a note on the talk page could help anything--the prod tag should already include a deletion rationale. I see what you're saying though, that a prod rationale of "POV article" would not make sense to a Wikipedia newbie. What is the solution? Link to [[WP:NPOV]]? Ask editors to write in more generic language? Wikipedia policies do not always break down into easily-digestible phrases. This is an unfortunate reality.
I agree that occasionally a worthy subject will get deleted. But I also think that admins do the best they can, and if a subject is truly noteworthy its article will be recreated. I try to be cautious with what I delete (though I admit that I have and do make mistakes, but again that is what the "open door" is for). We should not add any layers to the speedy deletion process. So much rubbish is created every day and there must be a fast way of getting rid of it.
Erica
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Erica wrote:
Prods should always have the creator notified. I don't see how a note on the talk page could help anything--the prod tag should already include a deletion rationale. I see what you're saying though, that a prod rationale of "POV article" would not make sense to a Wikipedia newbie. What is the solution? Link to [[WP:NPOV]]? Ask editors to write in more generic language? Wikipedia policies do not always break down into easily-digestible phrases. This is an unfortunate reality.
If a new article is POV just tag it as such. Let someone else who has interest in the subject have a chance to look at it and add a balancing view.
I agree that occasionally a worthy subject will get deleted. But I also think that admins do the best they can, and if a subject is truly noteworthy its article will be recreated. I try to be cautious with what I delete (though I admit that I have and do make mistakes, but again that is what the "open door" is for). We should not add any layers to the speedy deletion process. So much rubbish is created every day and there must be a fast way of getting rid of it.
It's not without reason that notability is more contentious than all the other deletion criteria combined. It's also evident that when you must deal with a large quantity of material the work looks so overwhelming that a siege mentality sets in. Giving the benefit of the doubt to the contributor in cases where notability is the only issue would go far in alleviating the incessant traffic of debate on that very problem.
Ec
Maury Markowitz wrote:
Despite the objections raised from time to time about this, I fail to see the issue. I think it boils down to the generic mistrust of all administrators that certain people who are not administrators seem to harbour.
I've been a contributer to the wiki for five years and an admin for three or four. I object to this sort of behavor, and it has nothing to do with "generic mistrust of all administrators".
It has everything to do with generic mistrust of administrators because it is what creates it. These people who go ahead and delete things following no counsel but there own, and without any effort to correct the situation produce an atmosphere where no-one feels certain what an admin will delete next. If we were confident that they were restraining themselves to deleting pure vandalism nobody would become concerned. Instead their laziness and impatience to have a high quota of deleted garbage prevents them from doing minimal searches or trying to start a dialogue with the contributor woh was likely acting in good faith. I can't stress enough that it's likely the leading cause of generic mistrust of administrators.
Ok, here's my suggestions:
In cases where tagging may result in an article, or significant portions of it, being removed for reasons other than vandalism or similar, the tagger must:
- place a note on the editor's talk page saying the article has been tagged
- place a note (NOT templated) on the article talk page explaining what the
problem is. "failed notability" is not good enough
Any tags placed that fail to meet these can be summarily deleted. If they are not removed, at the admin's leisure, they are _not_actionable_ until someone DOES meet these criterion or does remove them. Additionally, incorrect tags, prods on NPOV or notability for instance, should be summarily removed. These would fix the vast majority of cases I come across.
That sounds good, though it is probably less important when only significant portions of an article are deleted. At least then the deleted material is easily available through the article's history.
These lazy admins should be treated in the same way they treat contributors. Persistent refusal to treat users with respect should be grounds to initiate a request to de-admin.
Ec
From some comments in this discussion, it looks like the speedy
deletion process bites newcomers.
Come on, I've been a Wikipedian since February last year and I still don't know the speedy deletion criteria. Do you expect a newcomer to know them?
Chen Liping is among Singapore's top actresses. In terms of fame, success, etc. she is probably only matched by Zoe Tay and Fann Wong. The last time I read her article, it mentioned that she had won several awards, and I added a sentence about her starring in the movie The Best Bet. Was this an insufficient assertion of notability, that the article was speedied?
2007/4/13, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
Maury Markowitz wrote:
Despite the objections raised from time to time about this, I fail to see the issue. I think it boils down to the generic mistrust of all administrators that certain people who are not administrators seem to harbour.
I've been a contributer to the wiki for five years and an admin for three or four. I object to this sort of behavor, and it has nothing to do with "generic mistrust of all administrators".
It has everything to do with generic mistrust of administrators because it is what creates it. These people who go ahead and delete things following no counsel but there own, and without any effort to correct the situation produce an atmosphere where no-one feels certain what an admin will delete next. If we were confident that they were restraining themselves to deleting pure vandalism nobody would become concerned. Instead their laziness and impatience to have a high quota of deleted garbage prevents them from doing minimal searches or trying to start a dialogue with the contributor woh was likely acting in good faith. I can't stress enough that it's likely the leading cause of generic mistrust of administrators.
Ok, here's my suggestions:
In cases where tagging may result in an article, or significant portions of it, being removed for reasons other than vandalism or similar, the tagger must:
- place a note on the editor's talk page saying the article has been tagged
- place a note (NOT templated) on the article talk page explaining what the
problem is. "failed notability" is not good enough
Any tags placed that fail to meet these can be summarily deleted. If they are not removed, at the admin's leisure, they are _not_actionable_ until someone DOES meet these criterion or does remove them. Additionally, incorrect tags, prods on NPOV or notability for instance, should be summarily removed. These would fix the vast majority of cases I come across.
That sounds good, though it is probably less important when only significant portions of an article are deleted. At least then the deleted material is easily available through the article's history.
These lazy admins should be treated in the same way they treat contributors. Persistent refusal to treat users with respect should be grounds to initiate a request to de-admin.
Ec
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 13/04/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
Chen Liping is among Singapore's top actresses. In terms of fame, success, etc. she is probably only matched by Zoe Tay and Fann Wong. The last time I read her article, it mentioned that she had won several awards, and I added a sentence about her starring in the movie The Best Bet. Was this an insufficient assertion of notability, that the article was speedied?
Looking at it, this article was rightly speedied as a copyright violation from http://www.mediacorptv.com/celeb_bios/chenliping_index.htmhttp://www.mediacorptv.com/celeb_bios/chenliping_index.htm%29. Though how most people are meant to figure that out from the cryptic code CSD G12 is anyone's guess.
the wub wrote:
On 13/04/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
Chen Liping is among Singapore's top actresses. In terms of fame, success, etc. she is probably only matched by Zoe Tay and Fann Wong. The last time I read her article, it mentioned that she had won several awards, and I added a sentence about her starring in the movie The Best Bet. Was this an insufficient assertion of notability, that the article was speedied?
Looking at it, this article was rightly speedied as a copyright violation from http://www.mediacorptv.com/celeb_bios/chenliping_index.htmhttp://www.mediacorptv.com/celeb_bios/chenliping_index.htm%29. Though how most people are meant to figure that out from the cryptic code CSD G12 is anyone's guess.
Administrators who use those codes are supposed to link to the relevant part of the speedy deletion criteria page, thus:
[[WP:CSD#G12|CSD G12]]
Clicking on such a link then brings up the full reason for deletion.
As with many things that are only "supposed" to be done, and not policy, it often isn't.
-Gurch
Exactly. Instead of the cryptic "CSD G12" (which hardly anyone understands), they should have used an easier-to-read deletion summary, such as "copyright violation of [link]".
2007/4/17, the wub thewub.wiki@googlemail.com:
On 13/04/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
Chen Liping is among Singapore's top actresses. In terms of fame, success, etc. she is probably only matched by Zoe Tay and Fann Wong. The last time I read her article, it mentioned that she had won several awards, and I added a sentence about her starring in the movie The Best Bet. Was this an insufficient assertion of notability, that the article was speedied?
Looking at it, this article was rightly speedied as a copyright violation from http://www.mediacorptv.com/celeb_bios/chenliping_index.htmhttp://www.mediacorptv.com/celeb_bios/chenliping_index.htm%29. Though how most people are meant to figure that out from the cryptic code CSD G12 is anyone's guess.
-- the wub _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I trust admins. I trust them to almost always mean well, and to generally do well. I also know them to be human. I do not trust all eds. to either mean well or be competent, or be unbiased. I certainly don;t rust them to have the time. I ask for two or three articles a week to be undeleted for a bit so I can look at them. One-third of the admins ignore it, one-third say it isn't necessary and to trust them; one-third do it the way they should. So few are willing to do it that there is a separate very short list of the dozen or fewer admins who are prepared to say they will.
The consequences of a type I error, of accepting a borderline article when it should be rejected,is not very great.A very large number slip through anyway, to join the million or so already there. Many get picked up later. The consequences of a type II error, of rejecting a good article, is usually a lost article, and generally a lost editor.
This doesn't bother the experienced. They know how to defend a questioned article, They know not to be hurt by idiots. They forget the most people do not.. It isn't really a question of being an admin or not, as much as being experienced. ,
A wiki by nature is intended for an average user, and should not require this sort of espertise. -- David G.
On 4/13/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Maury Markowitz wrote:
Despite the objections raised from time to time about this, I fail to see the issue. I think it boils down to the generic mistrust of all administrators that certain people who are not administrators seem to harbour.
I've been a contributer to the wiki for five years and an admin for three or four. I object to this sort of behavor, and it has nothing to do with "generic mistrust of all administrators".
It has everything to do with generic mistrust of administrators because it is what creates it. These people who go ahead and delete things following no counsel but there own, and without any effort to correct the situation produce an atmosphere where no-one feels certain what an admin will delete next. If we were confident that they were restraining themselves to deleting pure vandalism nobody would become concerned. Instead their laziness and impatience to have a high quota of deleted garbage prevents them from doing minimal searches or trying to start a dialogue with the contributor woh was likely acting in good faith. I can't stress enough that it's likely the leading cause of generic mistrust of administrators.
Ok, here's my suggestions:
In cases where tagging may result in an article, or significant portions of it, being removed for reasons other than vandalism or similar, the tagger must:
- place a note on the editor's talk page saying the article has been tagged
- place a note (NOT templated) on the article talk page explaining what the
problem is. "failed notability" is not good enough
Any tags placed that fail to meet these can be summarily deleted. If they are not removed, at the admin's leisure, they are _not_actionable_ until someone DOES meet these criterion or does remove them. Additionally, incorrect tags, prods on NPOV or notability for instance, should be summarily removed. These would fix the vast majority of cases I come across.
That sounds good, though it is probably less important when only significant portions of an article are deleted. At least then the deleted material is easily available through the article's history.
These lazy admins should be treated in the same way they treat contributors. Persistent refusal to treat users with respect should be grounds to initiate a request to de-admin.
Ec
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
These lazy admins should be treated in the same way they treat contributors. Persistent refusal to treat users with respect should be grounds to initiate a request to de-admin.
Agreed, but then this might be even more difficult to enforce.
Another suggestion, this one is simpler and requires no work on the part of any admin. Simply change the A7 to make it very clear that the criterion only applies to *patently obvious* V, AD or N articles. This is *not* clear now, yet this is indeed the spirit of A7. In fact, in every example that's been posted here, the *patently obvious* criterion was not met.
This shifts the burden of proof away from the editor. IE, if they simply write a poor quality article, that alone is cannot be used for speedy. Only if the article *clearly notes it's own non-compliance* would it be a candidate for speedy.
For instance, an article about "bob, the guy that lives next to me and drinks a lot of beer" could be speedied because it actually explicitly denies notability. This sort of thing actually covers the vast majority of A7's. On the other hand "bob, they guy that loves next to me, is an actor that has been in several tv shows" should not be speedied, unless it also fails a more in-depth check, failing V or some other criterion as well.
Generally, one admin's concept of N should *not* be grounds for speedy unless the article is *obviuously* unimportant by it's own contents.
Maury
_________________________________________________________________ Win a webcam! Nominate your friends Windows Live Space in the Windows Live Spaces Sweetest Space Contest and you both could win! http://www.microsoft.com/canada/home/contests/sweetestspace/default.aspx
Maury Markowitz wrote:
These lazy admins should be treated in the same way they treat contributors. Persistent refusal to treat users with respect should be grounds to initiate a request to de-admin.
Agreed, but then this might be even more difficult to enforce.
It would be a nice cluebat. :-)
Another suggestion, this one is simpler and requires no work on the part of any admin. Simply change the A7 to make it very clear that the criterion only applies to *patently obvious* V, AD or N articles. This is *not* clear now, yet this is indeed the spirit of A7. In fact, in every example that's been posted here, the *patently obvious* criterion was not met.
This shifts the burden of proof away from the editor. IE, if they simply write a poor quality article, that alone is cannot be used for speedy. Only if the article *clearly notes it's own non-compliance* would it be a candidate for speedy.
This is important, even when the editor is the only one in a position to know where the information. We would all like to be able to trust the admins, but when the activities of some instill a generic mistrust all are too easily affects impressions of all admins.
For instance, an article about "bob, the guy that lives next to me and drinks a lot of beer" could be speedied because it actually explicitly denies notability. This sort of thing actually covers the vast majority of A7's. On the other hand "bob, they guy that loves next to me, is an actor that has been in several tv shows" should not be speedied, unless it also fails a more in-depth check, failing V or some other criterion as well.
The guy who "loves" next to you suggests a possible conflict of interest. ;-)
Generally, one admin's concept of N should *not* be grounds for speedy unless the article is *obviuously* unimportant by it's own contents.
It goes a little further than that when two admins have learned to work in tandem to clean out a class of allegedly non-notable articles before anyone else has even had the opportunity to respond. To me that an article's notability is even raised suggests that the article has already survived more objective criteria which should have been applied first. If an editor is to be the one responsible for providing evidence to prevent deletion he must be given time to do so.
Perhaps then the distinguishing feature between speedy and more formal deletion criteria should be the burden of proof. For a speedy the burden of proof should be with the admin; with an AfD request the burden can be shifted more toward the editor.
Ec
Perhaps then the distinguishing feature between speedy and more formal deletion criteria should be the burden of proof. For a speedy the burden of proof should be with the admin; with an AfD request the burden can be shifted more toward the editor.
Hmm, interesting. Perhaps you could mention this at the bottom of...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion
Maury
_________________________________________________________________ Win a webcam! Nominate your friends Windows Live Space in the Windows Live Spaces Sweetest Space Contest and you both could win! http://www.microsoft.com/canada/home/contests/sweetestspace/default.aspx
I hope people will not make quick notability judgements influenced by systemic bias.
Non-notability is not a reason for speedy deletion, only non-assertion of notability. There is very little room for systemic bias with CSD A7. An article about a notable person that does not assert that notability can be speedy deleted (the admin can't know they are notable, so it can't be avoided without removing A7 entirely), and an article about a non-notable person that does assert (false) notability cannot be speedy deleted (this is where PROD comes in).
The admin's decision is based solely on whether or not the article asserts notability. That is purely a factor of the article, not the subject, so systemic bias is not a significant problem.
Well, I don't think so. Just to continue on this example, there are 732 links for Google for this group, and some time back we were saying that a presence in cyberspace is one of the factors on which notability could be determined. Anyone who checked the entry would have probably noticed this link which was put up originally itself: http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu... FN
On 12/04/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Non-notability is not a reason for speedy deletion, only non-assertion of notability. There is very little room for systemic bias with CSD A7. An article about a notable person that does not assert that notability can be speedy deleted (the admin can't know they are
On 12/04/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Non-notability is not a reason for speedy deletion, only non-assertion of notability. There is very little room for systemic bias with CSD A7. An article about a notable person that does not assert that notability can be speedy deleted (the admin can't know they are
--
On 4/12/07, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org wrote:
Well, I don't think so. Just to continue on this example, there are 732 links for Google for this group, and some time back we were saying that a presence in cyberspace is one of the factors on which notability could be determined. Anyone who checked the entry would have probably noticed this link which was put up originally itself: http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu... FN
Honestly, it's not the admin's job to google everything. If the article creator doesn't specify a notiablity assertion, it's an A7 candidate.
Erica
The only speedy deletion criteria I am discussing is A7 (non-notability). I am not discussing any other flaws in the deletion process.
Someone else said that the notability criteria are horribly USA-biased. This may be true, to some extent.
Unless something is blatantly non-notable (for example "X is my classmate. Yesterday, we played a prank on a teacher..."), it should not be speedy deleted, but sent to AFD.
If I were an admin reviewing speedy deletion requests, I would swiftly delete attack pages, advertising, etc. but I would steer clear of speedy deletion requests under criterion A7, unless the article pertained to an area where I had reasonable expertise.
2007/4/12, Erica fangaili@gmail.com:
On 12/04/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Non-notability is not a reason for speedy deletion, only non-assertion of notability. There is very little room for systemic bias with CSD A7. An article about a notable person that does not assert that notability can be speedy deleted (the admin can't know they are
--
On 4/12/07, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org wrote:
Well, I don't think so. Just to continue on this example, there are 732 links for Google for this group, and some time back we were saying that a presence in cyberspace is one of the factors on which notability could be determined. Anyone who checked the entry would have probably noticed this link which was put up originally itself: http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu... FN
Honestly, it's not the admin's job to google everything. If the article creator doesn't specify a notiablity assertion, it's an A7 candidate.
Erica
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
This is exactly the sort of problem we have. Admins deleting everything they have not personally heard of, eh?
Mark
On 12/04/07, Erica fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/04/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Non-notability is not a reason for speedy deletion, only non-assertion of notability. There is very little room for systemic bias with CSD A7. An article about a notable person that does not assert that notability can be speedy deleted (the admin can't know they are
--
On 4/12/07, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org wrote:
Well, I don't think so. Just to continue on this example, there are 732 links for Google for this group, and some time back we were saying that a presence in cyberspace is one of the factors on which notability could be determined. Anyone who checked the entry would have probably noticed this link which was put up originally itself: http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu... FN
Honestly, it's not the admin's job to google everything. If the article creator doesn't specify a notiablity assertion, it's an A7 candidate.
Erica
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 12/04/07, Erica fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/04/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Non-notability is not a reason for speedy deletion, only non-assertion of notability. There is very little room for systemic bias with CSD A7. An article about a notable person that does not assert that notability can be speedy deleted (the admin can't know they are
--
On 4/12/07, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org wrote:
Well, I don't think so. Just to continue on this example, there are 732 links for Google for this group, and some time back we were saying that a presence in cyberspace is one of the factors on which notability could be determined. Anyone who checked the entry would have probably noticed this link which was put up originally itself: http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu... FN
Honestly, it's not the admin's job to google everything. If the article creator doesn't specify a notiablity assertion, it's an A7 candidate.
Erica
On 4/12/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
This is exactly the sort of problem we have. Admins deleting everything they have not personally heard of, eh?
Mark
No. It's deleting something because it doesn't say why it's notable.
For example, I would delete "So-and-so is an actress", but would think twice about "So-and-so is an actress. She has appeared in (bluelinked) movies X, Y, and Z." One asserts notability. The other doesn't. I don't see what the problem is here.
Erica
For example, I would delete "So-and-so is an actress", but would think twice about "So-and-so is an actress. She has appeared in (bluelinked) movies X, Y, and Z." One asserts notability. The other doesn't. I don't see what the problem is here.
The problem is that users who have not read the huge and ever-growing list of wiki policies and procedures are unaware of the notability guidelines and simply don't post anything about notability. No one would; did you put a section in the last history report you wrote called "why I think this topic is worthy of my report"? It certainly not something that commonly exists outside the wiki world. I've never seen another encyclopedia that has a section on every article called "why we put this article in here".
So a knowledgable editors spends time writing what I thought was a useful article. Then someone who is unfamiliar with the topic tags it. And then along comes an admin who's following a cat or robot-built list looking for articles that have been tagged, and presto-deleto.
It took me about 15 seconds to confirm that the company in question is widely known and reported on. A perfectly valid article was deleted due to a combination of a new editor being punished for not following policy that he could not possibly be aware of, combined with lazyness on the part of the tagging user and the deleting admin. Neither one could be bothered to do a google search, or if they did, couldn't be bother to report their reasons.
I see this _all_the_time_. The wikipedia is about the articles, not the policies, but it seems an ever-growing number of users and admins are forgetting this.
Maury
_________________________________________________________________ RealLiveMoms: Share your experience with Real Live Moms just like you http://www.reallivemoms.ca/
"Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote in message news:a4359dff0704120832p7a279c71o2a03797a701c2700@mail.gmail.com...
So a knowledgable editors spends time writing what I thought was a
useful
article.
An article on a famous person (or company, or whatever) that doesn't mention why they're famous is not a very useful article.
Nor is a stub, but these are the things from which useful articles grow...
- Mark Clements (HappyDog)
Erica wrote:
For example, I would delete "So-and-so is an actress", but would think twice about "So-and-so is an actress. She has appeared in (bluelinked) movies X, Y, and Z." One asserts notability. The other doesn't. I don't see what the problem is here.
Equally important as blue links going out from the article could be existing (red) links from other, existing articles. Both kinds of links could easily be counted by the server software when a new article is created, and linkless articles could be flagged. Has anybody tried to implement this?
Lars Aronsson wrote:
Erica wrote:
For example, I would delete "So-and-so is an actress", but would think twice about "So-and-so is an actress. She has appeared in (bluelinked) movies X, Y, and Z." One asserts notability. The other doesn't. I don't see what the problem is here.
Equally important as blue links going out from the article could be existing (red) links from other, existing articles. Both kinds of links could easily be counted by the server software when a new article is created, and linkless articles could be flagged. Has anybody tried to implement this?
There was (and may still be) a bot in use on the English Wikipedia which adds a template to new articles with no incoming links. This is also trivial for anyone looking at the article to check through Special:Whatlinkshere. Articles with no links at all are likely to be tagged as needing wikification (if they're just a mass of text) or for deletion (if there's no useful content) by someone watching for new pages.
-Gurch
Continuing this question, may I ask a few related questions:
* Should "notability" be relevant as a test-of-value in a cyber encyclopedia, where the amount of space available, at least theoretically, is unlimited in scope? * Isn't "notability" a relevant issue? For instance, in my village in Goa, India, the old schoolteacher who ran a local tiny grocer's shop was also "notable". So would Wikipedia have the space to include this kind of diversity? * What harm would there be if we extend the argument of "notability" to the grassroots too? I'm not talking about including a page on my pet dog who died on the Wikipedia. I'm more interested in, say, creating space for reflecting the priorities of a tiny language group on the west coast of India, which might not be able to compete with the "notability" levels of a janitor in New York, London or New Delhi (just stretching the argument).
To my mind, I think a stronger test for Wikipedia-inclusion could be accuracy of the entries. As long as outlandish claims are not made about a particular entry, a project like the Wikipedia (not constrained, theoretically, by paper or space ... and
Sorry about my earlier mail ending off mid-sentence. It should read as follows:
To my mind, I think a stronger test for Wikipedia-inclusion could be accuracy of the entries. As long as outlandish claims are not made about a particular entry, a project like the Wikipedia (not constrained, theoretically, by paper or space ... and not intended to be a hierarchical top-down, exclusvisit process) should have space to reflect the diversity of our planet.
Thanks to all for spending so much attention on this issue! --FN (currently in .au, based in Goa, India)
On 16/04/07, Frederick FN Noronha fredericknoronha@gmail.com wrote: Continuing this question, may I ask a few related questions:
* Should "notability" be relevant as a test-of-value in a cyber encyclopedia, where the amount of space available, at least theoretically, is unlimited in scope? * Isn't "notability" a relevant issue? For instance, in my village in Goa, India, the old schoolteacher who ran a local tiny grocer's shop was also "notable". So would Wikipedia have the space to include this kind of diversity? * What harm would there be if we extend the argument of "notability" to the grassroots too? I'm not talking about including a page on my pet dog who died on the Wikipedia. I'm more interested in, say, creating space for reflecting the priorities of a tiny language group on the west coast of India, which might not be able to compete with the "notability" levels of a janitor in New York, London or New Delhi (just stretching the argument).
To my mind, I think a stronger test for Wikipedia-inclusion could be accuracy of the entries. As long as outlandish claims are not made about a particular entry, a project like the Wikipedia (not constrained, theoretically, by paper or space ... and --
FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please) http://fn.goa-india.org http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com Konkani Wikipedia (under incubation) needs your help! http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kok
- Should "notability" be relevant as a test-of-value in a cyber
encyclopedia, where the amount of space available, at least theoretically, is unlimited in scope?
The problem is that an entry on the wiki _becomes_ a notability criterion for many people. For instance, if I believed that drinking 50 litres of water a day makes you live forever few people would give it credence. But if someone were to write a wiki article on the topic, it suddenly becomes much more "real". This is why we need notability as a filter.
- Isn't "notability" a relevant issue? For instance, in my village in
Goa, India, the old schoolteacher who ran a local tiny grocer's shop was also "notable". So would Wikipedia have the space to include this kind of diversity?
I think you mean "relative issue"? In that case, no. The wikipedia is a worldwide resource, a grocer in Goa has no worldwide notability. Yes, I realize there is a huge amount of existing content that falls into this category.
We have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. If you think this person is important enough to deserve a web page for, then by all means, set one up on Facebook.
To my mind, I think a stronger test for Wikipedia-inclusion could be accuracy of the entries. As long as outlandish claims are not made about a particular entry, a project like the Wikipedia (not constrained, theoretically, by paper or space ... and
I agree to some degree. But it is also important to note that an article can be perfectly accurate and still completely bogus. Many people believe we didn't actually go to the Moon. A perfectly accruate article on their claims would still be extremely misleading. That's why there's lots of filters and appeal to NPOV.
Maury
_________________________________________________________________ Win a webcam! Nominate your friends Windows Live Space in the Windows Live Spaces Sweetest Space Contest and you both could win! http://www.microsoft.com/canada/home/contests/sweetestspace/default.aspx
Hi Maury, Thanks for your reply.
On 17/04/07, Maury Markowitz maury_markowitz@hotmail.com wrote:
- Should "notability" be relevant as a test-of-value in a cyber
encyclopedia, where the amount of space available, at least theoretically, is unlimited in scope?
The problem is that an entry on the wiki _becomes_ a notability criterion for many people. For instance, if I believed that drinking 50 litres of water a day makes you live forever few people would give it credence. But if someone were to write a wiki article on the topic, it suddenly becomes much more "real". This is why we need notability as a filter.
But aren't we confusing here between an untruth (50 litres of water) and a question of scale or importance (all humanly-defined, with the usual and traditional biases of defining the 'centre' and the 'periphery', the important that is 'us' and the not-so-important that is 'them')?
- Isn't "notability" a relevant issue? For instance, in my village in
Goa, India, the old schoolteacher who ran a local tiny grocer's shop was also "notable". So would Wikipedia have the space to include this kind of diversity?
I think you mean "relative issue"? In that case, no. The wikipedia is a worldwide resource, a grocer in Goa has no worldwide notability. Yes, I
So, are we saying that the world is not round? That there is indeed a centre and a periphery? That some people are more important than others (because they have mirrors and filters that judge them to be so)? And that Wikipedia will continue to act as a mirror defining its priorities by the standards of the traditional filters anyway (whether it is being subconsciously influenced by the values of Britannica, even when there is no reason for it to be so, or accept the 'big' and the 'important' and reject those that seem to be 'small' and 'insignificant' to our perspective today)?
If George V or Czar Whoever were defining things, then I'm sure M.K. Gandhi and V.I.Lenin would have looked as very insignificant (the village grocers or naked fakirs of the cyberspace equivalent of their time) once upon a time...
realize there is a huge amount of existing content that falls into this category.
We have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. If you think this person is important enough to deserve a web page for, then by all means, set one up on Facebook.
So we are thinking of hierarchies here too... where someone is good enough for Facebook and not Wikipedia, though what is said about that someone is factual and truthful anyway?
Would it be fair for me to argue that a country of 5 million should not have too much space (or none at all) compared to another of 1.4 billion or 1.1 billion? I think importance and relevance is largely in how we see it.
Cyberspace allows for new ways of seeing things, and buildings equalities/inequalities. Let's seize the moment and make the most of it. Can the alternative Wikipedia be really alternative in its approach?
FN
But aren't we confusing here between an untruth (50 litres of water)
Oh, I think "truth" is much slippier than that. And I'm a proto-physicist.
So we are thinking of hierarchies here too... where someone is good enough for Facebook and not Wikipedia, though what is said about that someone is factual and truthful anyway?
Precisely.
Perhaps the world needs a "universal biography site", perhaps not, I don't know. But I do know the wikipedia isn't it, either way.
Maury
_________________________________________________________________ Find the best places on campus to get take out, study & unwind http://www.liveu.ca/explore.aspx
On 4/12/07, Erica fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/04/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Non-notability is not a reason for speedy deletion, only non-assertion of notability. There is very little room for systemic bias with CSD A7. An article about a notable person that does not assert that notability can be speedy deleted (the admin can't know they are
--
On 4/12/07, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org wrote:
Well, I don't think so. Just to continue on this example, there are 732 links for Google for this group, and some time back we were saying that a presence in cyberspace is one of the factors on which notability could be determined. Anyone who checked the entry would have probably noticed this link which was put up originally itself:
http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu...
FN
Honestly, it's not the admin's job to google everything. If the article creator doesn't specify a notiablity assertion, it's an A7 candidate.
Which I think is a crap policy, frankly.
Honestly, it's not the admin's job to google everything.
Think of the admins! Will someone please think of the admins?!
If the article creator doesn't specify a notiablity assertion, it's an A7 candidate.
I am Bender, please insert girder.
Maury
_________________________________________________________________ Get the Kung Fu Bunny Theme pack free! http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/Themes/Messenger/Reward/Default.aspx?Loca...
On 4/12/07, Maury Markowitz maury_markowitz@hotmail.com wrote:
Honestly, it's not the admin's job to google everything.
Think of the admins! Will someone please think of the admins?!
If the article creator doesn't specify a notiablity assertion, it's an A7 candidate.
I am Bender, please insert girder.
Maury
You're not being very constructive here. Was that supposed to be a joke? sarcasm? Please explain.
Erica
On 4/12/07, Erica fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/12/07, Maury Markowitz maury_markowitz@hotmail.com wrote:
Honestly, it's not the admin's job to google everything.
Think of the admins! Will someone please think of the admins?!
If the article creator doesn't specify a notiablity assertion, it's an
A7
candidate.
I am Bender, please insert girder.
Maury
You're not being very constructive here. Was that supposed to be a joke? sarcasm? Please explain.
It's a sardonic comment on the robotic idiocy of bureaucratic policies.
Through the magic of google:
*Morgan:* No. You see, a bureaucrat of my rank isn't supposed to fraternise.
*Bender:* That's what makes it so juicy. It's the forbidden fruit angle * everybody* loves. First I'll say "You'll never guess who saw Fry and Morgan doing it," and they'll say "Who, Bender? Who?" and I'll say "It was lovable ... [His voice begins to slow down.] ... old Bender."
[Morgan has put something in the back of his neck. A 3.5" disk comes out of the back of his head and she takes it.]
*Fry:* Hey, what did you do to him?
*Morgan:* I downloaded his brain. Everything that is Bender is right here. His mind, his memories, his in-your-face interface.
*Bender:* (mechanical voice) I am Bender. Please insert girder.
*Fry:* But, but ... Bender need brain ... for ... smart making. [Morgan puts the disk in a red tube and sends it away.] What did you do now? Stop doing things!
*Morgan:* I sent the disk to be filed at the Central Bureaucracy. I did what I had to do, Fry; He was a bad robot.
*Fry:* No, he was a bad *friend*. I want him back right now.
*Morgan:* Then you should have filed a request 20 years ago.
[Fry growls.]
*Fry:* I'm sick of you and your bureaucracy!
[He slides everything off his desk. Morgan grins.]
*Morgan:* Dirty boy! Dirty boy!
[She dives on him.]
It's a sardonic comment on the robotic idiocy of bureaucratic policies.
Precisely.
Through the magic of google:
Yeah, exactly my point.
Actually, I highly recommend looking for the *third* instance of the quote, which is a particularily clever bit of writing.
Maury
_________________________________________________________________ Win a webcam! Nominate your friends Windows Live Space in the Windows Live Spaces Sweetest Space Contest and you both could win! http://www.microsoft.com/canada/home/contests/sweetestspace/default.aspx
Honestly, it's not the admin's job to google everything.
Think of the admins! Will someone please think of the admins?!
If the article creator doesn't specify a notiablity assertion, it's an
A7
candidate.
I am Bender, please insert girder.
You're not being very constructive here. Was that supposed to be a joke? sarcasm? Please explain.
Wow, I had no idea this would work so well!
Your first statement appears to suggest that the major concern here should be admin workload, that it's ok to delete perfectly valid articles it that saves an admins having to think. This is similar to suggesting we should get rid of courts in order to speed up the justice system.
Your second statement suggests that slavish adherance to protocol is more important than the article itself. This is the same logic that leads to a fast-food delivery guy being shot dead by the police and everyone saying its OK because protocol was followed. I consider this even more rediculous. Wdeliberately put a human in the loop to avoid these problems. If we just wanted to robotically follow protocol, we could make a robot to do it. Yet the system still fails, continuously. That's because the A7 guidelines are vauge, and are being constantly misinterpreted.
So in order to demonstrate just how silly I think these statements are, I responded by quoting the Simpsons and Futurama. I think they're particularily cogent. The first is Helen Lovejoy's tagline (slightly modified), which she uses to deflect concern in any sort of moral crisis situation.The second quote is from an episode of Futurerama where Bender has his personality removed and he is reduced to a "pure robot", capable only of button-push responses.
The quotes were deliberately selected in order to be trivially easy to find using google with a minimum of effort. But apparently you couldn't be bothered. You see my point?
Maury
_________________________________________________________________ Dont waste time standing in linetry shopping online. Visit Sympatico / MSN Shopping today! http://shopping.sympatico.msn.ca
The quotes were deliberately selected in order to be trivially easy to find using google with a minimum of effort. But apparently you couldn't be bothered. You see my point?
Maury
I have already stated my opinions on the matter of A7 deletions. I'm tired of people assuming that admins don't care about new articles, and they just "drive-by" delete them. I have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart, and I'm tired of people assuming otherwise. I am done discussing this. If A7 changes, let me know. Otherwise I will continue as I have been.
Erica
You mean you're going to continue deleting good notable articles because they just don't give you that FEELIN' of notability when you look at 'em?
Mark
On 13/04/07, Erica fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
The quotes were deliberately selected in order to be trivially easy to find using google with a minimum of effort. But apparently you couldn't be bothered. You see my point?
Maury
I have already stated my opinions on the matter of A7 deletions. I'm tired of people assuming that admins don't care about new articles, and they just "drive-by" delete them. I have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart, and I'm tired of people assuming otherwise. I am done discussing this. If A7 changes, let me know. Otherwise I will continue as I have been.
Erica
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
You mean you're going to continue deleting good notable articles because they just don't give you that FEELIN' of notability when you look at 'em?
Well let's not be quite so harsh on Erica. I checked her contribs and logs shortly after receiving that (IMHO somewhat worrying) message and found that practically all of her (bad assumption?) contributions are deleting articles. I have no doubt that looking up articles _would_ dramatically increase the workload in this case.
But just as interesting is the fact that I could not find a single example -- not one -- that was not more appropriately filed under some _other_ SD criterion. Many were simply garbage, which falls under vandalism. Many others were obvious vanity. A good percentage of the later actively stated their non-notability, like one article written about a high-school volleyball player who the author apparently has a crush on. None of these worried me in the slightest.
What is worrying people in this thread is that the same criterion is _also_ being used to delete articles that seem perfectly valid. So I propose that A7 be changed to make this distinction clear: questions of non-notability are not subject to SD, whereas articles that _state their non-notability_ are. I really don't think this change would harm anyone.
Maury
_________________________________________________________________ Add the Windows Live Messenger NHL Stats Agent to your buddy list and get your stats fix instantly http://sports.sympatico.msn.ca/NHL/NHL_Stats_Agent
On 4/16/07, Maury Markowitz maury_markowitz@hotmail.com wrote:
You mean you're going to continue deleting good notable articles because they just don't give you that FEELIN' of notability when you look at 'em?
Well let's not be quite so harsh on Erica. I checked her contribs and logs shortly after receiving that (IMHO somewhat worrying) message and found that practically all of her (bad assumption?) contributions are deleting articles. I have no doubt that looking up articles _would_ dramatically increase the workload in this case.
I'd like to state for the record that I have written dozens of articles and have some 20K edits. Not all my contributions are deletions. Thanks.
Erica
You were probably checking her admin logs.
2007/4/16, Erica fangaili@gmail.com:
On 4/16/07, Maury Markowitz maury_markowitz@hotmail.com wrote:
You mean you're going to continue deleting good notable articles because they just don't give you that FEELIN' of notability when you look at 'em?
Well let's not be quite so harsh on Erica. I checked her contribs and logs shortly after receiving that (IMHO somewhat worrying) message and found that practically all of her (bad assumption?) contributions are deleting articles. I have no doubt that looking up articles _would_ dramatically increase the workload in this case.
I'd like to state for the record that I have written dozens of articles and have some 20K edits. Not all my contributions are deletions. Thanks.
Erica
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
They pooh-poohed my electric frankfurter!
Mark
On 12/04/07, Maury Markowitz maury_markowitz@hotmail.com wrote:
Honestly, it's not the admin's job to google everything.
Think of the admins! Will someone please think of the admins?!
If the article creator doesn't specify a notiablity assertion, it's an A7 candidate.
I am Bender, please insert girder.
Maury
Get the Kung Fu Bunny Theme pack free! http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/Themes/Messenger/Reward/Default.aspx?Loca...
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org