Anthony DiPierro wrote: Why not have these levels set by the long proposed article evaluation scheme, based on th numbers which that process gives. That carries no deletion implication, but it warns the user that if he views articles below a certain threshold he may just be viewing a lot of garbage.

On 10/3/05, Alphax <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote: I also think this is a good idea. I previously didn't like the idea of public article rating schemes, but I was wrong to express my opposition before waiting to see what would develop. This could be a very good use indeed.

On 10/3/05, Alphax <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote: Deletion should never be an automatic process. I've seen far too many articles "saved" while on AfD to support that.

Further, it is the existence of "poor quality" or nonexistent articles that gets us new editors. If all of the articles we allow the public to view are near perfect, few will join.

Often when I come across untagged CSDs I'll tag them and move on, waiting for an admin to come and delete or list on AfD...

Because non-admins can deny being members of the cabal ;)

Philip Sandifer wrote: It's an interesting point-counterpoint issue, because although Wikipedia is about providing what the readers want, many readers aren't at all concerned with the overall health of the project-- they are only concerned with whether it helps with their homework, or Livejournal debate or whatever. I think most deletionists who are upset about people writing articles about themselves get upset because after putting in all this work to improve the project, someone coming in and writing an article about his band is seen as an appropriation of the work of others. Wikipedia is popular because of the work people put in to improve it, and that means that anyone using it to do self-promotion is to be (rightfully) shunned. Yes, the information about your garage band might be true, but that doesn't mean it's okay for you to use Wikipedia as your own personal vehicle to superstardom. We only want contributions from people who want to improve the encyclopedia; not people who want to use it to advance their own interests.

only interested in th quality of the articles they are actually searching for. Does that mean notability has nothing to do with quality? No, I don't think so. But it doesn't mean it does, either. - Ryan

On 10/22/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam(a)inbox.org> wrote: the for [[Willy article write that for But it has nothing to do with quality? It may not be effective promotion, but it's about the intent, not the effect. Besides, any such article about a regular unremarkable band is eating server resources. One wouldn't be a problem, but if you allow one why not the other and soon we've got a whole bunch of them. Keeping such bands would set a bad precedent. --Mgm

On 10/22/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam(a)inbox.org> wrote: if bring with Even crap need mentaining we just don't have the rescources to mentian a million articles millionth rate bands. -- geni

On 10/23/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam(a)inbox.org> wrote: 100,000 least a don't You assume that the people who create these articles: a)stick around b)know all the wikimarkup and stuff -- geni

Actually, we're trying to build an *encyclopedia* that anyone can edit; it astonishes me that people keep forgetting this.

On 10/22/05, JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> wrote: Are you saying that Wikipedia isn't a website? I'm fully aware that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but that doesn't change the fact that it's also a wiki, which is a website that anyone can edit. We can argue about whether or not Wikipedia would have succeeded had it not been a website if you want, but the comment I was making was that the crazy idea - of a website that anyone could edit - actually worked. Anthony

_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

I assume that a good portion of them will, yes. I think this is what happens when you treat contributors with gratitude and a helping hand rather than accusing them of self-promotion and deleting their contributions.

I make the assumption that most contributors, even those that happen to be interested in garage bands, are acting in good faith. I make the assumption that if you give people the tools and the freedom to create good articles they're going to do so. Maybe you think that's a crazy idea, but if so I find it hard to understand why you believe in the crazy idea of building a website that anyone can edit. Anthony

On 10/22/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam(a)inbox.org> wrote: It may not be effective promotion, but it's about the intent, not the effect. Besides, any such article about a regular unremarkable band is eating server resources. One wouldn't be a problem, but if you allow one why not the other and soon we've got a whole bunch of them. Keeping such bands would set a bad precedent.

I just did a very informal poll among friends I have who do not edit Wikipedia, but who read it, on the matter of when an article should be deleted. I did not express my own opinion to any of them and solicit agreement. So the fact that they are my friends so, naturally, they agree with me doesn't play into this. On the other hand, the possibility that I am naturally prone to talking to people who basically agree with me, even on issues we haven't discussed, might. In any case - no one I talked to mentioned notability as a reason to delete. All of them, upon being specifically asked about notability, generally took a "whatever" approach to it, with several specifically saying, "No, if the article isn't lies, it should definitely be included no matter how trivial the topic." Other views included "If the topic is mentioned in another article, and that mention wasn't created specifically to make an excuse to have an article, it should be included" (The closest thing to a deletionist position I got) and "If someone cares enough to create it, it should probably not be deleted, even though that someone might be being an idiot." Which doesn't prove anything, I'll be the first to admit. But I think this is an important thing we haven't been asking - what do readers think. Most of the people expressing their opinions on this inclusion/ exclusion debate are editors. Most of us, in fact, are very jaded editors. And we are an incredible minority among the people who load en.wikipedia.org every day. And we should bear that in mind - because after a bit of talking to readers, I think people really do want us to try to be a place where you can find any piece of knowledge or fact. To a degree, actually, that's even beyond what I think is important to achieve (Although I still would rather leave in garage bands than exclude notable but obscure topics, and I still don't care enough to delete garage bands myself).

On Oct 4, 2005, at 4:32 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: I think it would be important to specify "Wikipedia" not "an encyclopedia," so as to avoid treating Wikipedia like paper.

Other than that, I don't think there's anything we can't handle. I'd like to see us add the name, address, telephone number, and social security number of every person in the US, for instance.

On 10/4/05, Alphax <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote: Not if the information is verifiable, it isn't.

That's what a phonebook is mostly for. Also, yes, the world, not the US. But how can such a thing be verifiable. Phone numbers and addresses change like the plague.

certainly not encyclopedic material.

On Oct 4, 2005, at 4:32 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: I think it would be important to specify "Wikipedia" not "an encyclopedia," so as to avoid treating Wikipedia like paper. -Snowspinner _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

> Why not have these levels set by the long proposed article evaluation > scheme, based on th numbers which that process gives. That carries no > deletion implication, but it warns the user that if he views articles > below a certain threshold he may just be viewing a lot of garbage. >

Anthony DiPierro wrote: This is a bigger problem that has effects on more than just the deletion process. It only adds to the need for a more sophisticated search process, a request that our developpers are certainly aware of. I often search single words in Wiktionary, but the problem could be bigger in a much larger project such as en:Wikipedia. The results give me not only deleted articles but deleted versions of articles that still exist. I can't imagine that coming up with all this makes life any easier on the servers. For single word searches I can have 500 hits when in reality only 50 of them still contain the word. Those 50 are scattered throughout the entire list rather than featured at the top of the list. Such an exaggerated historical search may be useful for some people but they should need to check a box before they get it.