On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
On 11/01/2009, White Cat
<wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)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:
Tens of thousands of articles were removed by one individual (User:TTN) via
the means I listed in the past year and a half. This was done without
securing a general consensus. He himself said that his motivation was merely
to get rid of articles he feels are junk (which are practically every
article on fiction). He was sanctioned for his conduct by the
arbitration committee as he was revert waring among other things.
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.
In other words there is a lack of consensus. Meaning no mass action of any
kind should be taken until a consensus is secured.
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.
Can you at least explain me how such a ranking would slow down or stop
deletionism? Such types of ranking already exists.
For example Googles results are based on popularity. If more people are
going to the 'Beowulf 2007' article than the 'Beowulf' article, that is
hardly the fault of the authors of the articles.
More history related topics are featured than fiction related topics. That
alone is a ranking difference if you ask me.
Such a ranking may provoke deletionism more. Consider a case where a history
related topic gets a rating lower than a fiction related topic. Instead of
improving the poorly written history related topic deletionists pursue
seeking the deletion of the fiction related topic (which may not necessarily
be better in quality). It is much easier to delete something than improve
it.
- White Cat
-- 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l