[WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Alvaro García]

I don't think this would work properly, sinve don't forget this is an  
encyclopedia, not a blog, and it is supposed to have the same content  
from everyone; otherwise it would get pretty messed up.
And when you say that only selected articles would appear, you're  
saying there would be some articles one would be unable to read?

--
Alvaro

On 11-01-2009, at 15:34, "Ian Woollard" <ian.woollard at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/01/2009, White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Even so there exits people who mass remove (redirectify/merge/ 
>> delete - take
>> your pick) content. Mass creation isn't that big of a deal. Junk  
>> can always
>> be dealt with. Junk has never been a serious issue as the  
>> definition of junk
>> has been rock solid all along.
>
> I do not believe this to be the case. And as you say yourself:
>
>> A problem has emerged when people decided to
>> expand the definition of junk to include entire categories of  
>> articles
>> without securing a consensus for it.
>
> In other words, others definition of junk differs from yours,
> presumably because their value system varies.
>
>> An elite group of self righteous users does not add up to such a  
>> consensus.
>> If such people truly cared about the well being of the encyclopedia  
>> they
>> would have spent the time to secure the consensus before taking  
>> action.
>
> Thinking laterally, just an idea:
>
> Slashdot has an interesting thing where they have ratings for
> postings, with different categories. They then permit you to consider
> certain categories to be more or less important to you (e.g. funny
> postings may be raised up in the rating meaning you're more likely to
> see them).
>
> In principle a similar thing could apply to the wikipedia, if we don't
> do a hard delete to articles (or only for the truly nasty vandalism
> stuff), but simply rate them along multiple axes then it could be
> possible for a user to indicate to the wikipedia what he or she
> values, and only articles that are highly enough rated for their own
> set of values would appear, (with a default set of values used for
> anonymous users.)
>
> Doing it that sort of way potentially avoids the either it's suitable
> for our glorious wikipedia; or it isn't dichotomy, and permits poor
> quality articles a chance to improve below the waterline before
> becoming full-fledged articles.
>
> I'm not saying it would be a perfect system, but it would probably be
> better than what we have right now; in other words we would have far
> less deletionism, because we would have far fewer deletes.
>
>>   -- White Cat
>
> -- 
> -Ian Woollard
>
> We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly
> imperfect world would be much better.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l