[WikiEN-l] Re: Afd "votes" with no real reasons given

[Tony Sidaway]

On 9/16/05, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 9/15/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > I meant to respond to Ryan on this. As a AfD closer, I do expect all
> > participants in the debate to spend a few minutes, or whatever it takes,
> > reading the article, and then read the other comments in the debate, and 
> > 
> > have a bit of a poke around the subject, possibly look at the article
> > history. If they're not doing at least the first two of those, they're 
> > not
> > making an informed comment. If I see them write a few words in the 
> > context 
> > of the debate, I'm happier that there has been an informed discussion.
> 
> 
> I don't think it's your business to decide what is and isn't an "informed 
> decision". The person casting the vote thought their decision was informed 
> enough or they wouldn't be voting. If you think someone isn't well informed, 
> you inform them. You don't just discard their votes without comment.
> 

I cannot discard a stated good faith opinion, even if I am not sure it was 
well informed. But I would certainly be justified in giving it less weight 
than an opinion that clearly showed serious thought, in determining whether 
consensus had been reached.


And if an AfD result were to be challenged I would be inclined to present 
such sheep voting as evidence on behalf of the appellant's case for a 
review. An Afd closer has to climb right inside the debate, to wear it like 
a piece of clothing. We're not mere clerks tallying votes. The debate I 
closed last night--at the request of someone who found the task too 
daunting--was exemplary. I don't often see that level of engagement. Afd 
participants cannot just run down the list of debates ticking keep/delete 
according to their prejudices, and then expect their opinions to be given 
equal weight with those who consider the question seriously.