[WikiEN-l] VfD is broken

Sun Sep 5 22:22:11 UTC 2004

> > 1. There is no reason to delete any of the pages there at all.
> > Copyvios already has a special page. And there is also already
> > candidates for speedy deletion and simple vandalism that is deleted on
> > sight.
>
>Please provide examples. Speedy deletions are for contributions that
>don't make sense. VfD is for those that do but aren't encyclopedic.

Examples of what? Examples of what would happen in the theoretical situation 
that articles wasn't deleted due to VfD?

> > 2. Everyone using that page to delete articles is sabotaging Wikipedia
> > and should be blocked.
>
>I will not argue with trolls, I will not argue with trolls, I will not
>argue with trolls...

I'd like to retract that statement because "sabotaging" implies intent. 
However, the outcome is unfortunately the same even if the intention is 
good.

> > 4. Articles about "non-notable" stuff does not hurt Wikipedia. Since
> > noone cares about the stuff, noone will link to it and noone will
> > search for it and NOONE will ever see it!
>
>A keyword search can easily bring up non-notable articles. When somebody
>sees an entry resembling a blog posting, what will they think of Wikipedia?

Really? Looking at VfD I couldn't find very many articles that probably had 
been indexed by Google.  But the article Puchland that most on the people on 
VfD wants to delete ought to have been indexed because it has been there 
since 2003.

Google can't bring it up somehow. Yahoo can, but wont unless the search is 
specific ("israel forum" works i.e.). And if I made such a search, I'm sure 
I would be more satisfied with a decent description of an online-forum than 
no hits at all.

Hypothetically, if every person that lists an article on VfD also listed how 
they encountered the article, what would be the most common methods of 
encountering for those articles that ALSO are deleted? I guess:

1. Recent changes 90%
2.  Checking user contributions of specific users. 7%
3. Links from specific user's pages. 3%

And maybe once in a blue moon someone would say "encountered it while 
searching for something else". Wikipedia is very good at organising itself 
automagically and that is why VfD is not needed.

If there was a function that counted page hits this assertion could be 
proven. Especially if it only counted page hits from users that are not 
logged in. Then maybe people would realise it is not worth the time, effort 
and flames to save a handful of people from visiting a page that they might 
or might not wanted to see.

Btw, if you are sure that there is a method that "can easily bring up 
non-notable articles", please explain what it is. Lets also say that 
"easily" in this context means:

1. Does not involve the "Wikipedia:" or "Special:"-namespace.
2.  A sucess rate of 5% (debatable) or higher.
3. The method is not restricted to a certain area of Wikipedia.

Tricky, isn't it? :)

> > 6. And cause those articles are never read by anyone it doesn't hurt
> > to remove them from Wikipedia. But that's not why vfd is sabotaging
> > Wikipedia. It is because 50-80% of the articles listed there should
> > not and will not be deleted. The authors of those articles are forced
> > to defend their work to people that just haven't got a clue and never
> > will. Then they have to engage in more pointless arguing with the
> > deletionists just to prevent them from destroying Wikipedia!
>
>Please provide examples. A good deal of the time, the authors don't
>defend their works. Contrary to common belief, very few people who visit
>VfD are rabid deletionists who will vote delete for an arbitrary reason.
>Most of us actually take the time to Google the article's subject, etc.
>The author doesn't have to do much. I've VfDed a lot of articles in my
>time, and a lot of them were kept, not thanks to the author's
>intervention, but the research of other kind-hearted Wikipedians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vfd#Maine_Mall_--_Add_to_this_discussion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vfd#Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America__--_Add_to_this_discussion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vfd#Pyle_MS_--_Add_to_this_discussion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vfd#Dan_O.27Connor_--_Add_to_this_discussion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vfd#Most_visited_websites_--_Add_to_this_discussion

etc...

1. A lot of time was wasted by the persons listing those pages.

2. Some voluntarily wastes their time by voting. Their life, their problem.

3. VfD's problem is that XX% of those that voted "keep" did not do it 
because they enjoy wasting time but because they feel that they are forced 
to defend good articles from being destroyed. Atleast poor "anthony (see 
warning)", who voted "keep" 38 times, didn't really seem to enjoy the 
process.

> > 7. The Wikipedia concept is that anyone can edit a page and that only
> > those who edits a page gets to determine what information goes into a
> > page. Its like "do it yourself cause you can't tell anyone else what
> > to do cause there is no way to force them to do it." Now that concept
> > doesn't work with vfd cause someone can say "uuuh.. delete unless it
> > is improved in a week.". That person basically forces those who care
> > about the article to write what they know about it or it will be
> > killed. It is not fair at all.
>
>Well, honestly, tell me, what is there to write about someone's smelly
>socks? If it's a notable article, it will be improved anyway. Are you
>suggesting we tolerate garbage just because the garbage's topic is
>something notable? Honestly, if I had to pick between deleting a

1. You believe there is a defintion for what garbage is. There is not. What 
you call garbage is what others call stubs.

2. If we didnt allow garbage, Wikipedia wouldn't be what it is. If we do not 
continue to allow garbage, Wikipedia will not grow.

>(hypothetical) article on Ronald Reagan which is full of unrelated
>nonsense about doing drugs or keeping it in the hopes somebody would

Is this a straw man? Anyway, I find it easier to do: click edit, select all, 
press delete, write "Ronald Reagan was USA:s president 1984-1992", press 
save than to do: search for a non-existant article about an American 
president, click edit, write the same stuff, press save.

Especially the searching  and finding of non-existant articles about stuff 
I'm not at all interested in is so annoying.

>improve it, I'd do the former without skipping a beat. Having an article
>only gives the impression to readers that we tolerate junk. I'd rather

We do tolerate "junk". And if you mean that VfD is somehow effecting the 
"junk"-level of Wikipedia then you are wrong.  There are so many articles 
that could have been listed on VfD but aren't just because there are so many 
articles that is added each day.

You also sound very arrogant when you use the words "junk" and "garbage" in 
these contexts.

> > 8. As an example:
> >
> > NASA Project Gemini Familiarization Manual -- Add to this discussion
> >
> > The flight manual for the Gemini spacecraft - excellent Wikisource
> > material. Transwiki and delete --Rlandmann 00:33, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
> >
> >    * Transwiki and delete. Geogre 00:54, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
> >    * Transwiki and delete. GeneralPatton 00:55, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
> >    * Have moved article to Wikisource. Please Delete DarylC 2 Sep 2004
> >
> > Which of these comments is a total waste of everyones time?
> > Rlandmann's is because despite the fact that he had an excellent idea
> > he was to damn lazy to carry it out himself as he easily could. Geogre
> > and GeneralPatton just seem to show off their excellent talents in
> > agreeing. Finally, DarylC, the primary author of the page actually
> > does some work and moves the article. Very good DarylC.
> >
> > The problem with this is that atleast thousand people have been forced
> > to read this meaningless junk because Rlandmann didn't place the
> > suggestion to transwiki on the article's talk page which would have
> > been the right thing to do.
>
>You are missing the whole point of VfD. The point is to ask a wide
>audience - that "thousand people" - "Is this article worth keeping, or
>do we move it elsewhere/delete it?". The point of VfD is consensus.
>Placing the request on the Talk leads to a very very limited audience -
>how many Wikipedians read Talk pages on a regular basis? And unitarily
>moving it is even worse.

1. Rlandmann asked thousand people if NASA Project Gemini Familiarization 
Manual should be "transwikied"... 3 people responded. Doesnt seem very 
efficient.

2. To WHO does it matter what happens with NASA Project Gemini 
Familiarization Manual? To the ones who read that article's talk page.

3. If someone gets a consensus consisting of the article's talk page's 
audience which includes the primary author of the page. Wouldn't then that 
consensus have as much if not more weight than a consensus received from 
VfD?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

To those who believe that VfD is flawed, could this idea or some alteration 
of it be a way to improve it?

> > 10. The only way to fix vfd would be to allow people to cast the
> > identical vote on range of articles listed there.  Then you would be
> > able to vote "keep doesn't hurt wikipedia" (or whatever) on each and
> > every article.

_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to 
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement