b_duke at octa4.net.au
Wed May 3 11:20:18 UTC 2006
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 01:27:09AM -0700, Pete Bartlett wrote:
> >Er. [[WP:OWN]]? Images are an exception, as nearly all images are the
> >work of one or two people at most. Articles are not. Articles can,
> >and often are, watched. Wikipedians ought to pay attention to their
> >watchlists if they wish to express opinions about their contributions.
> The vast majority of AfDed articles are very new and have just one author.
Indeed and it is likely that they are put off by having their gems
described as "cruft". However, I think people are put off more by other
1. General jargon of which cruft is just one.
2. Being put to AfD within hours or sometimes minutes of starting the
article. I think this is most offensive. New editors are finding their
way. They are not obsessed with WP. They have a life. They will take
time to develop the article. If someone thinks the article is bad, they
make a note of it and follow it for a week or so, talk to the editor on
his talk page and perhaps the article talk page. It is sheer bad manners
and certainly biting the newbie to push something to Afd so quickly. There
is no hurry. WP is not going to be perfect tomorrow if you speedy delete
a few articles.
3. Comments on Afd like, "looks non-verifiable to me", "seems
non-notable" and other comments that show the nominator has not done
enough homework before jumping to conclusions. I have seen quite a few
AfDs withdrawn recently after the nom realises that the debate is
showing they were quite wrong. Nominating something for deletion has its
4. Nominations which are basically "I do not understand this, so lets
see whether people want to delete it". We should want to improve and
keep stuff, noit delete it.
I could go on. AfD depresses me for several reasons and the fact that
most of the articles are so bad they deserve deletion is only one of
them. It is the others that could be improved that leads to so much
> >> It is amazing how often AfD debates
> >> do not benefit from the opinion of the original creator.
They may not have set their preferences so articles they edit
automatically go on their watchlist. They probably do not yet understand
the watchlist system. Welcome messages should advise newbies on the
> >It is not amazing. Most people do not feel the need to continue to
> >respond to questions about their contributions to Wikipedia after they
> >have contributed them. This is unsurprising.
> >I throughly oppose a requirement to notify people who have expressed
> >(through not using their watchlists) a desire not to continue
> >discussing their contributions.
> That is breathtaking arrogant Jesse. A sizeable proportion of AfDed articles
> are written by anonymous contributors. They don't even have watchlists!
> Are you frightened that if contributors get involved we might actually
> have to keep some of the articles?!
Brian Salter-Duke (Brian Duke) b_duke at octa4.net.au
Post: 626 Melbourne Rd, Spotswood, VIC, 3015, Australia
Phone 03-93992847. http://members.iinet.net.au/~linden1/brian/
Honorary Researcher Fellow, Dept. of Medicinal Chemistry, Monash Univ.
More information about the WikiEN-l