I should point out that it could just be that someone sent a mass email out to all his friends, and one of them reported it as spam, not realizing it wasn't intended that way. No particular action is necessary at this stage, and I'm writing this fellow to ask him what's up.

Giskart wrote:

Jimmy Wales wrote:

...

Some unhelpful person is apparently "spamvertising" for wikipedia.

Put on the main page a message for a week that it is not policy of wikipedia to send spam. And a message to everbody to discourage misuse of the good name of wikipedia by sending spam. -- giskart

[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

From root@nupedia.com (Cron Daemon) Mon Sep 23 04:25:36 2002

Brion VIBBER wrote:

...

...

...

Subject: The True encyclopedia From: Hunter Peress hu.peress@mail.mcgill.ca

I believe this is the same fellow who's currently pushing a wacky I've- been-a-registered-user-for-four-days-and-I-know-how-to-radically-reform- Wikipedia-for-the-batter scheme at his user page:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3AHfastedge

See also: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk%3AHfastedge

I've mentioned to this user on his/her talk page that blanket deletion of huge swathes of material when rewriting is bad wiki etiquette. We should keep an eye out. Well-meaning, I think, but is leaping in a bit too quickly.

On Monday 23 September 2002 10:22, Brion VIBBER wrote:

Brion VIBBER wrote:

...

I believe this is the same fellow who's currently pushing a wacky I've- been-a-registered-user-for-four-days-and-I-know-how-to-radically-reform- Wikipedia-for-the-batter scheme at his user page:

Uh, for the _better_. Though reforming the Wikipedia batter might be interesting too. Who's up for cross-linked waffles?

If you reform Wikipedia for the batter, I'll take a pitcher of it.

phma

At 09:03 AM 9/23/02 -0400, you wrote:

All right. The big deleters (Engels, Jheimens, Mav) have adopted a more aggressive policy for deleting pages than the stated one (on [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]] and [[Wikipedia:Policy on permanent deletion of pages]]).

Primarily, they delete stubs.

We hashed this out once a while ago (see [[m:Kill the Stub Pages]], [[Wikipedia:The perfect stub article]], [[Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub]]) and as you can see from the deletion policy, the consensus was that in the face of disagreement/ambiguity, it was better to not delete stubs than to delete them.

I'd like to ask people to stop deleting stubs until we discuss this again.

(See also [[User talk:Maveric49]] for a beginning debate.)

I quite agree, although my vested interest in stubs is less now days, since I have both had little time and have generally worked on substantial articles. I just don't have time to monitor the deletion police. I did notice a proposed deletion of [[poverty]] a dismal article about a dismal subject, which I thought rather unwise. It would seem on obvious candidate for editing and addition of more substantial material rather than deletion.

To the individuals involved, I would say that if you spent more time writing articles you would have less time for vandalism.

Fred

Fred Bauder wrote:

...

I just don't have time to monitor the deletion police. I did notice a proposed deletion of [[poverty]] a dismal article about a dismal subject, which I thought rather unwise. It would seem on obvious candidate for editing and addition of more substantial material rather than deletion.

I objected to the deletion proposal for [[poverty]]. It was a lousy, pathetic stub, but it's a serious topic which Wikipedia should cover. Deleting that stub only puts off the day when we write an article on it.

Well, if you want to write an article on poverty, or want to ask someone else to write it, then by all means do so. I still don't see how the existing definition would in any way have helped you, nor how the non-existence of the page in any way would stop you.

Andre Engels

|From: Andre Engels engels@uni-koblenz.de |Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:27:02 +0200 (CEST) | |> Fred Bauder wrote: |> |> >I just don't have time to monitor the deletion police. I did |> >notice a proposed deletion of [[poverty]] a dismal article about a dismal |> >subject, which I thought rather unwise. It would seem on obvious candidate |> >for editing and addition of more substantial material rather than deletion. |> > |> I objected to the deletion proposal for [[poverty]]. |> It was a lousy, pathetic stub, but it's a serious topic which Wikipedia |> should cover. |> Deleting that stub only puts off the day when we write an article on it. | |Well, if you want to write an article on poverty, or want to ask someone |else to write it, then by all means do so. I still don't see how the existing |definition would in any way have helped you, nor how the non-existence of |the page in any way would stop you. | |Andre Engels |[Wikipedia-l]

tarquin wrote in part:

Could we ressurect the "Articles in need of attention" page, and post there instead of the votes for deletion page? It's there but doesn't seem to be in use much.

The name of the page is [[Wikipedia:Votes for rewrite]]. You can find them all by searching for "votes", since I created [[:]] redirects to each of them when the watch lists weren't working right once.

-- Toby

On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 02:49:01PM +0100, tarquin wrote:

...

I just don't have time to monitor the deletion police. I did notice a proposed deletion of [[poverty]] a dismal article about a dismal subject, which I thought rather unwise. It would seem on obvious candidate for editing and addition of more substantial material rather than deletion.

I objected to the deletion proposal for [[poverty]]. It was a lousy, pathetic stub, but it's a serious topic which Wikipedia should cover. Deleting that stub only puts off the day when we write an article on it.

I'm not convinced it works that way, inexperienced wikipedian that I am. Speaking personally, if I notice a "full" link then I'll likely as not pass over it. If I notice an "empty" link then I'm much more likely to consider whether I could write an article on the subject.

On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 12:14:41PM -0400, The Cunctator wrote:

Another suggestion: Automatic [[Mark this page a poor stub]], to give people an obvious option other than putting poor stubs on Votes for deletion or deleting them.

Better would be a generic "This Page Needs Attention" link (on the sidebar - I presume that's what you mean).

On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 02:49:01PM +0100, tarquin wrote:

...

...

I just don't have time to monitor the deletion police. I did notice a proposed deletion of [[poverty]] a dismal article about a dismal subject, which I thought rather unwise. It would seem on obvious candidate for editing and addition of more substantial material rather than deletion.

I objected to the deletion proposal for [[poverty]]. It was a lousy, pathetic stub, but it's a serious topic which Wikipedia should cover. Deleting that stub only puts off the day when we write an article on it.

I'm not convinced it works that way, inexperienced wikipedian that I am. Speaking personally, if I notice a "full" link then I'll likely as not pass over it. If I notice an "empty" link then I'm much more likely to consider whether I could write an article on the subject.

-- Khendon (Jason Williams)

I would say it is a good habit to check out articles on subjects of interest. Especially in areas of expertise.

Fred

On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 10:19:51AM -0600, Fred Bauder wrote:

...

I'm not convinced it works that way, inexperienced wikipedian that I am. Speaking personally, if I notice a "full" link then I'll likely as not pass over it. If I notice an "empty" link then I'm much more likely to consider whether I could write an article on the subject.

I would say it is a good habit to check out articles on subjects of interest. Especially in areas of expertise.

Oh, definitely. But say I know a little bit about Little Bunny Foo Foo, and think I could write a few useful paragraphs with the aid of google, but I'm by no means a Bunny Foo Foo expert. If I see a Bunny Foo Foo link to an article, unless I have more spare time than usual I'll probably pass over it - after all, there's bound to be a few Bunny Foo Foo expert wikipedians who know more about the subject than me.

But if I see a dangling link to Bunny Foo Foo, chances are better I'll, uh, "hop" over and write something.

Just a point of view.

At 07:23 AM 9/23/02 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote:

I quite agree, although my vested interest in stubs is less now days, since I have both had little time and have generally worked on substantial articles. I just don't have time to monitor the deletion police. I did notice a proposed deletion of [[poverty]] a dismal article about a dismal subject, which I thought rather unwise. It would seem on obvious candidate for editing and addition of more substantial material rather than deletion.

To the individuals involved, I would say that if you spent more time writing articles you would have less time for vandalism.

Fred

You're talking to, and about, people who have made many substantial contributions to the Wikipedia--disagreements on policy do not constitute vandalism, any more than cluttering the Wikipedia with one-sentence stubs does.

On 9/23/02 9:23 AM, "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:

I quite agree, although my vested interest in stubs is less now days, since I have both had little time and have generally worked on substantial articles. I just don't have time to monitor the deletion police. I did notice a proposed deletion of [[poverty]] a dismal article about a dismal subject, which I thought rather unwise. It would seem on obvious candidate for editing and addition of more substantial material rather than deletion.

To the individuals involved, I would say that if you spent more time writing articles you would have less time for vandalism.

I just want to say that I'm not trying to imply that anyone, including the people I mentioned, aren't well-intentioned, positive contributors. The people who delete a lot also contribute lots more. We just need to all work together for best principles on how to properly manage Wikipedia's content, find the right balance between a free-for-all and delete-all-mediocrity.

On 9/23/02 10:22 AM, "Andre Engels" engels@uni-koblenz.de wrote:

...

All right. The big deleters (Engels, Jheimens, Mav) have adopted a more aggressive policy for deleting pages than the stated one (on [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]] and [[Wikipedia:Policy on permanent deletion of pages]]).

Primarily, they delete stubs.

I don't know where you get the impression that "Primarily, [we] delete stubs." but it is a very bad description of what we do. Yes, we delete stubs, but not all stubs, just the very bad ones. I know you disagree with the deletion of stubs, so I bend backward, but there is still a limit - and to me that limit is reached if a stub is _less_ than a dictionary definition. Your anger seems to have been aroused by maveric deleting impulse noise with the text "Unwanted low-quality loud sound(s)". Now, I now too little about impulse noise to give a definition of it, but I do know that if someone who does know about it writes about it, (s)he will not let that definition stand. Which means that it does NOT fall under "stubs that at least have a decent definition and might in the future become articles".

I apologize; I didn't mean that you delete stubs more than anything else; I meant the primary issue of contention is that you delete stubs.

My anger hasn't been aroused. This is more about patterns of behavior than specific examples, but if we must discuss individual cases, the real problem with the deletion of "impulse noise" was that it happened within half an hour of appearing on the Votes for deletion page. That's much too fast, whether or not its definition is sufficient.

The thing to remember is that deletions are effectively immutable; thus the burden to justify deletion should be extreme (or at a minimum, the process should be slow).

Some of the harm in deleting weak stubs: * discourages potential contributors who see their work deleted, instead of improved * prevents people who find stubs to goad them to improve the entry from doing so * hard to quantify weakness--how "decent" must the entry be? * hides measure of interest in the entry

We need to either amend the stated policy or change current deletion behavior; either way, we should discuss these issues first.

The Cunctator wrote:

Some of the harm in deleting weak stubs:

• discourages potential contributors who see their work deleted, instead of

improved

• prevents people who find stubs to goad them to improve the entry from

doing so

• hard to quantify weakness--how "decent" must the entry be?
• hides measure of interest in the entry

We need to either amend the stated policy or change current deletion behavior; either way, we should discuss these issues first.

For a change, I agree with all that Cunc is saying here.

Khendon wrote:

I'm not convinced it works that way, inexperienced wikipedian that I am. Speaking personally, if I notice a "full" link then I'll likely as not pass over it. If I notice an "empty" link then I'm much more likely to consider whether I could write an article on the subject.

Speaking personally, I work the exact opposite way. A "full" link on a subject that interests me will almost certainly get followed to see what's there (and I then may correct / expand / replace completely with new text), while an "empty" link is guaranteed nothing, and much more likely to be ignored unless I'm already planning to write on that particular subject.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Here is my idea:

As The Cunctator noted, deletions are effectively irreversible, since there is no straightforward way for even a sysop to get at the deleted page, archived though it may be. We should change this.

I propose that any logged in user have the option to delete pages, just as they all have the option to move pages today. But this will not really delete the page from the database! The page is still there, and if you go to it, you can look at its history to see what it used to say. You can even revert it to undelete the page if you wish. The deletion will show up in [[Special:Recentchanges]] and [[Special:Watchlist]], where we will see that it has been deleted, with summary text similar to the text on [[Wikipedia:Deleted pages]] (which the deleter will have provided in a form just as sysops do today when they delete pages). These pages and article histories can have a "D" flag by the edit, similar to the "N" for new pages and the "M" for minor edits.

The deleted page shouldn't show up in [[Special:Allpages]]. A link to the deleted page should have a "?" (or red colour). You'll be allowed to move pages to these deleted pages (swapping histories since we want to preserve them). For all intents and purposes, the page appears to be gone, but when you go to it, you can find stuff in the history still. The database will know to treat the page in this fashion, because a new Boolean field will have a flag saying that it's been deleted.

To make this really work well, we should include one more thing: the ability to delete individual versions from a page's history. This would be used to remove copyright violations, and for no other reason. There are many copyright violations hidden in pages' histories now, and we are technically in violation of copyright for having them, however unobvious it may be for somebody to get to them. So we need to do this anyway, as has been suggested before. Only sysops would be able to do this, with a "del" link next to the "diff" and "cur" links in each page's history.

Benefits of my proposal: * Forces us to deal with copyright violations in histories. * Allows people to restore wrongly deleted pages easily. * Makes it much safer to delete useless stubs without hassle. * Lets people know if a page on their watchlist has been deleted. * Allows people to reverse redirects by moving pages without being a sysop. (You delete the target, then move the source to the target.)

It also obviates the need for [[Wikipedia:Deleted pages]], but this needs to be replaced with [[Special:Deletedhistories]] (to track deletions of copyright violations in histories), so that isn't really a benefit.

I believe that this proposal would be very helpful to all of us. The Cunctator will be able to rest easy knowing that no information has been lost when Andre deletes a page, and Andre will be able to delete truly useless pages without getting The Cunctator on his case about it. We'll still need a deletion policy to prevent edit wars (of a delete/revert variety), but it won't have to be as strict. Deletion will be just another edit, like the rest of Wikipedia (except for deletion of copyright violations, which we *should* be tough on).

-- Toby

I wrote in very first part:

Here is my idea:

And I seem to be at least the 3rd to suggest it. But I receive the messages in digest form, and I'd thought of it a couple of weeks ago anyway, so I don't feel bad about claiming it for my own. ^_^

-- Toby

--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:

To make this really work well, we should include one more thing: the ability to delete individual versions from a page's history. This would be used to remove copyright violations, and for no other reason. There are many copyright violations hidden in pages' histories now, and we are technically in violation of copyright for having them, however unobvious it may be for somebody to get to them. So we need to do this anyway, as has been suggested before. Only sysops would be able to do this, with a "del" link next to the "diff" and "cur" links in each page's history.

I agree with most of your proposal, but I'm not sure of this part. I do agree with the need to remove copyright violations. I am concerned, however, that people may be too quick to use this function. We've had many cases where one Wikipedian believed a text to be under copyright, but it was actually contributed by the copyright holder. If such a feature was put in place, we would have to develop a fairly strict policy on why and how to use it.

On the other hand, everyone could loosen up on deletions. :)

Stephen Gilbert

__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com

Stephen Gilbert wrote:

--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:

...

There are many copyright violations hidden in pages' histories now, and we are technically in violation of copyright for having them, however unobvious it may be for somebody to get to them.So we need to do this anyway, as has been suggested before. Only sysops would be able to do this, with a "del" link next to the "diff" and "cur" links in each page's history.

I agree with most of your proposal, but I'm not sure of this part. I do agree with the need to remove copyright violations. I am concerned, however, that people may be too quick to use this function. We've had many cases where one Wikipedian believed a text to be under copyright, but it was actually contributed by the copyright holder. If such a feature was put in place, we would have to develop a fairly strict policy on why and how to use it.

Unusable content in particular revisions can be plucked out manually by a developer (currently me, Lee, Magnus) if the appropriateness is established. For instance, see the history for [[New Jersey Turnpike]].

I'm dubious that it's something we'd want to do all the time, though. Permanent deletion isn't supposed to be easy.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)