[WikiEN-l] Deletion policy needed

[Ray Saintonge]

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>>Maybe. But ballot stuffing isn't our only problem and there are
>>reasonable ways to detect it. Sysops not having clear directions
>>what to do is the other problem. Some delete when there is a 2/3
>>majority, some do not delete when the author of the page
>>protests. It is absolutely important that everyone can follow the
>>same standard, and I think the most reasonable course of action is
>>for Jimbo to set such a standard.
>>
>Yes, I think that's right.  On this narrow question, i.e. given the
>way we are voting now, what constitutes a threshold for action, we can
>all agree that it's very important that we have some sort of standard,
>while leaving open the possibility that over time the details of the
>standard might need to change, or that we might change the entire
>process in fundamental ways.
>
There seems to be a whole industry developing in the VfD issue. 
 Personally, I don't waste much time there.  My view on deletions is 
that as long as there is reasonable doubt, it should stay.  Any 
percentage based threshhold is bound to be arbitrary.

Voting there is one big time-waster!  Yesterday (Oct. 16) there were 11 
items added to the list.  If I am to give an informed vote on any of 
these, I need to go to and read the article.  If that only takes an 
average 5 miniutes per article that's 55 minutes, much more on some 
other days.

There's also the [[Wikipedia:Pages needing attention]].  I often suspect 
that it's there for people who want somebody else to do their work for 
them.  A person who puts something there on an unfimiliar topic should 
perhaps try to clean one up about something that he knows better.

>As such, while I'm sympathetic to the notion of excluding votes from
>mysterious users who have only edited 1 time, I think that unless it's
>a huge huge problem, we can safely ignore it.
>
I agree

>(Indeed, although I don't condone people making multiple accounts in
>order to cheat on a vote -- I would consider that as coming very close
>to a bannable offense, and certainly it's bannable if continued after
>warnings, etc. -- I *also* think that if someone is willing to go to
>that much effort, we should try hard to see if there's something we
>aren't seeing, something that can be accomodated.)
>
Certainly.  If the amount of attention paid to any kind of cheating (not 
just voting) is out of proportion to its occurence, preventing it wastes 
a lot of time for no significant benefit.  If the margin of victory in a 
vote is wide, a few cheated votes are of no significance.  If the margin 
of victory is very small, we have a divided community whose problems 
won't be solved by tracking down those few cheated votes that would 
reverse the result.  The unnecessary tracking down of cheaters runs 
contrary to the presumption of good faith.

Ec

>