[WikiEN-l] Votes for deletion and due process

Tue Aug 19 05:45:15 UTC 2003

On Monday 18 August 2003 14:06, Daniel Mayer wrote:
> Nicholas Knight wrote:
> >This latest effort at increasing the amount
> >of work one has to do to get anything useful
> >done is just helping that perception along.
> >Every time I turn around there's another
> >largely political detail I have to be aware of,
> >and  it's doing anything but encourage me to
> >contribute to Wikipedia.
>
> So who is most harmed; the person who has to paste a small boilerplate
> message into an article, or the person who wrote that article or helped
> improve it, have the article mysteriously disappear one day without any
> obvious reason why?
>
> Not placing proper notice on an article falling under the 7 day rule and
> marked for deletion, is akin to trying a person without bothering to tell
> them about the trial! Yeah sure it is on a publicly viewable page, but then
> so are court records; should society expect ordinary people to periodically
> check those records just to make sure they are not on trial for something?

a) Most people have their freedom abruptly denied before recieving any notice. 
Cops show up, say "you're under arrest", and cart them off to jail. The 
analogy really doesn't work.

b) Speaking of the analogy not working... The article is on trial, not the 
author. The article should have all the time in the world to check vfd and 
prepare its defense (what, you mean reason and sanity are part of policy 
discussions?).

> This lack of due process is very unwiki.

"unwiki" means very different things to very different people. To me, 
personally, "wiki" is purely a TECHNICAL term, not a philosophy.

> The tiny bit of extra work is also a technical detail that can be fixed by
> semi-automating the Votes for deletion process (as it was in Phase II).

Then go do it. This isn't about the notice being there, it's about adding yet 
another step.

> >I've had to put up with pointless procedures on
> >volunteer projects before. I'm not about to do it again.
>
> Sorry, but the deletion of anything that falls under the 7 day rule is a
> big deal and needs to be discussed.

That's what vfd is there for.

> Providing the boilerplate gives the
> author of the article and its readers a chance to properly argue their
> case. Not providing the boilerplate, IMO, is a bit sneaky.

If you want to add it manually to every page that gets listed on vfd, go 
ahead. I don't have a problem with the text being there, though apparently 
some people have some concerns. What I have a problem with is being told I'll 
have to go through yet another irritating step that was never needed until 
somebody decided for themselves that it was.

Why wasn't this little "policy" decision advertised far and wide? I never saw 
any mention of it until Saturday. Speaking of "sneaky"...