[Wikipedia-l] Entries getting delete...

[David Goodman]

 I trust admins. I trust them to almost always  mean well, and to
generally do well. I also know them to be human.  I do not trust all
eds. to either mean well or be competent, or be unbiased. I certainly
don;t rust them to have the time. I ask for two or three articles a
week to be undeleted for a bit so I can look at them. One-third of the
admins ignore it, one-third say it isn't necessary and to trust them;
one-third do it the way they should. So few are willing to do it that
there is a separate very short list of  the dozen or fewer admins who
are prepared to say they will.

The consequences of a type I error, of accepting a borderline article
when it should be rejected,is not very great.A very large number slip
through anyway, to join the million or  so already there. Many get
picked up later.  The consequences of a type II error, of rejecting a
good article, is usually a lost article, and generally a lost editor.

This doesn't bother the experienced. They know how to defend a
questioned article, They know not to be hurt by idiots. They forget
the most people do not.. It isn't really a question of being an admin
or not, as much as being experienced. ,

A wiki by nature is intended for an average user, and should not
require this sort of espertise.   -- David G.

On 4/13/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Maury Markowitz wrote:
>
> >>Despite the objections raised from time to time about this, I fail to
> >>see the issue. I think it boils down to the generic mistrust of all
> >>administrators that certain people who are not administrators seem to
> >>harbour.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I've been a contributer to the wiki for five years and an admin for three or
> >four. I object to this sort of behavor, and it has nothing to do with
> >"generic mistrust of all administrators".
> >
> It has everything to do with generic mistrust of administrators because
> it is what creates it.  These people who go ahead and delete things
> following no counsel but there own, and without any effort to correct
> the situation produce an atmosphere where no-one feels certain what an
> admin will delete next.  If we were confident that they were restraining
> themselves to deleting pure vandalism nobody would become concerned.
> Instead their laziness and impatience to have a high quota of deleted
> garbage prevents them from doing minimal searches or trying to start a
> dialogue with the contributor woh was likely acting in good faith.  I
> can't stress enough that it's likely the leading cause of generic
> mistrust of administrators.
>
> >Ok, here's my suggestions:
> >
> >In cases where tagging may result in an article, or significant portions of
> >it, being removed for reasons other than vandalism or similar, the tagger
> >must:
> >
> >1) place a note on the editor's talk page saying the article has been tagged
> >2) place a note (NOT templated) on the article talk page explaining what the
> >problem is. "failed notability" is not good enough
> >
> >Any tags placed that fail to meet these can be summarily deleted. If they
> >are not removed, at the admin's leisure, they are _not_actionable_ until
> >someone DOES meet these criterion or does remove them. Additionally,
> >incorrect tags, prods on NPOV or notability for instance, should be
> >summarily removed. These would fix the vast majority of cases I come across.
> >
> That sounds good, though it is probably less important when only
> significant portions of an article are deleted.  At least then the
> deleted material is easily available through the article's history.
>
> These lazy admins should be treated in the same way they treat
> contributors.  Persistent refusal to treat users with respect should be
> grounds to initiate a request to de-admin.
>
> Ec
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


-- 
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.