[WikiEN-l] Re: Giving reasons in AfD

[Daniel P. B. Smith]

> I support the idea of forcing people to actually argue their view, but
> I see a lot of problems with the current idea.
> 1) The decision of the closing admin is always going to be questioned.
> 2) Having only arguments doesn't show how many people actually endorse
> these views.
> 3) Debates on schools and roads will probably have an equal amount of
> delete and keep arguments of which the validness is impossible to
> establish as both "sides" think the other side is wrong and end up in
> endless counter aguments.
>
> And if we were to force actual arguments we should also find a way to
> make people actually read an article and vote based on its merit and
> not a view on the general category of articles.
>
> --Mgm

I'm not sure how you can "force" people to argue their view beyond  
lip-service and gaming the system. If people won't take the trouble  
to give a good reason, they won't. It's discourteous, and that's a  
shame, but I don't know how to enforce courtesy.

At one time, the boilerplate text at the top of VfD specifically  
directed discussants to give a reason for their vote. It doesn't any  
more. I don't know why not. But it didn't really matter, because  
people frequently cast votes without making the effort to explain  
their rationale, then as now.

At one time, someone decided it would be a good idea to review VfD  
nominations and make judgements as to whether the nominator's  
rationale for deletion accorded with policy, and to mark those  
nominations which he judged to be invalid with cheerful little pastel- 
colored nastygrams. It turned out not to be a good idea.

--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/