I'm not trying to sink it, if I wanted to try and do that I'd nominate it for deletion. This is a discussion list, so I vetted my opinion of the project. But me thinking it's a crap inclusionist's wet dream isnt a reason to actually scrap it. that's just my personal gripe.
And the point I was making wasn't that it's bad to encourage participation in AFDs, but that this is canvassing for AFD work that begins with the presupposition that the whole system needs double checking and that deletions as unencyclopedic are more often than not flawed. It thumbs its nose at the validity of the results of the regular AFD process by saying we need to build a task force to go about sweeping up. While this might be in order if there really was big problems with a certain type of deletion going on, I simply don't agree. I have faith in the usefulness and veracity of the AFD process as it stands, without any outside interference or lobbying.
On 7/13/07, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/14/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
"Unfortunately this is not always the case. AfD nominators are not perfect and are sometimes operating at least partly in ignorance about the subject of the article."
So in other words, in urgin people to check every AFD, the project
assumes
good faith and poor judgement, intelligence (or both) on the part of all nominators. that's even better.
Imagine asking people to check an AFD!! Every prod and AFD is a direct statement of bad faith: all effort put into the article to date has been wasted, and the contributors were crazy for starting the article. It is hardly a novel concept that some people assume that the nominator is completely wrong until proven right. The default at AFD is keep, in theory.
This is merely a stab in the dark based on my experience, but I think that only a third of Afd nominations are clearly correct, and they are usually closed within a day or two; many of these articles could have fallen under prod or CSD. A third of the nominations are about topics that are inappropriate or borderline, and serious thought is required by Afd participants. The rest of the nominations are unnecessary; the article topic and content are both clearly appropriate and could be rescued or merged into another article if only someone would assume good faith and try to build on what the contributors had been trying to achieve with the article. But that takes time. Rescuing one article could take one person an entire week, including trips to the library or even learning a little of a foreign language in order to verify some disputed facts.
On 7/14/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Th other thing that I notice about this project is that they neglect to notice that completely unencyclopedic or original research topics are
often
chock-full of good writing and cobbled together citations. It's not
just, or
even primarily, poorly written articles needing improvement that are nominated as unencyclopedic. automatically going about and improving articles under consideration for deletion as unencyclopedic assumes that
not
only nominators possess poor judegement, but that the community at large
is
so stupid as to not be able to recognize when a small or poorly written article is worthy of encyclopedic treatment. The project's motto might
as
well be "Let's help the morons with no vision!"
As far as I can tell, the projects motto is more like "Lets put in a concerted effort where other people have demonstrated over a long period that they prefer to vote delete rather than spend four hours working on an article that is probably going to be deleted anyhow." Pretty noble intention if you ask me. The project has done nothing wrong so far; why try to sink it while it is still in the shipyard?
-- John
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l