[WikiEN-l] Actual Problems with WP:V

[Zoney]

On 04/04/2008, White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Let me explain
>
>    - There exists an article "Alpha"
>    - There is a problem with article "Alpha"
>    - Article "Alpha" does not follow all guidelines and/or policies
>    - A user comes in and removes all content from Article "Alpha" and
>    redirects it to article "Beta" which has a related coverage.
>    - No content is added to article "Beta" in this process
>    - User calls this action a merge which is an editorial decision
>    independent from AFD
>    - Even pages of failed AFDs can be redirectified
>
> This is what is happening in a nutshell. The topics this is happening
> range
> from fiction related articles (episodes/characters) to highways (real
> world
> related) as well as Townships among other topics.
>
>
>    - White Cat
>
>
>
This is a very serious and depressing issue. Happens very regularly indeed.
Mind you, at least this can be simply reversed (and often is), unless the
redirecting party is intransigent and persistent.

On 03/04/2008, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:

If you wander over to WP:V you'll see where I reposted the discussion
> there. However, I tend to find the mailing list also a useful place to
> discuss policy issues, as it has a higher number of grizzled old-
> timers who generally miss the policy page discussions.
>
> As for the dead bodies, our article on [[Train wreck]] has a rather
> nice section on the use of the term as a metaphor. Complete with ill-
> advised {{fact}} tag.
>
> -Phil
>

I consider myself a grizzled old-timer (contributor for over 4 years, admin
3.5 years) and I've long given hope. There's an inherent problem with the
wiki model that the show ends up being dictated by the most persistent
editors, regardless of whether they are reasonable or problematic. Wiki is
great for collaborative editing, but is pretty much useless for
decision-making and policy creation.

Consensus on Wikipedia is a fiction and a lie. The word is usually
misappropriated to mean whatever the Wikipedia editor wants it to mean. It
was almost preferable to rely on votes everywhere as in the past, although
mind you, that still happens where it suits people (magically the votes of a
handful on an obscure page are also "consensus"). Certainly preferable to a
discussion and then one "side" getting their way, either through being the
majority or most persistent. It's not consensus if you just keep going until
the other side quits - it does not imply you've finally got something they
can put up with, just that you have exhausted their patience and/or sanity.

I would certainly consider WP:V among other policy pages to be a train
wreck, and of course it is not actually applied in practice all the time,
because that would be unworkable. This allows people to strictly apply WP:V
and other policies where it suits them, allowing them to get rid of content
they disagree with.

Zoney

-- 
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...