[Foundation-l] Corporate vanity policy enforcement

[Tim Starling]

geni wrote:
> On 9/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 29/09/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Sorry, you can't have your article unless you apply *this* magic
>> trick we mention on a page you didn't read, did you."
>>
> 
> you don't get that becuase the only way to get to a page that allows
> you to create a new page is to click a redlink.
> 
>> Bites the newbies badly, and doesn't stop editors of bad faith for a
>> second. Rules can't cure malice.
> 
> You can't create an article that no one else wants without editing an
> existing article that someone might care about.
> 

Wouldn't it be better to apply the filter retroactively, i.e. to delete 
orphan articles with human confirmation some time after they are created? If 
we put in profanity filters to prevent bad page saves, Wikipedia would 
suddenly be overwhelmed with 5H1t, if you understand my meaning. But the 
current system of IRC notification and semi-automated reversion is strangely 
effective.

Let's say for argument's sake that maybe there is a way to automatically 
recognise PR fluff, even if the best method is not by orphan status as geni 
has suggested. Then you can automate the process of deleting it. Display a 
big list of articles with a column of checkboxes, click "select all", select 
"CSD a7" from a drop-down list, click "delete". Wham, all gone. Keep the 
filters covert as much as possible, e.g. on the client side.

These kinds of features are the things we're trying to encourage with what 
I've been calling "hybrid" development, i.e. simultaneous development on the 
client and server. Get the client-side developers interested, ask them what 
they need on the server side in support, and we server-side developers will 
see if we can incorporate it into an API or extension.

-- Tim Starling