[WikiEN-l] Quality vs. consensus

Thu Oct 20 17:47:36 UTC 2005

MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

>>Maintaining deletion discussions actively open after something is
>>deleted would probably have the counter-intuitive result that fewer
>>would be undeleted.  At the very least, the heat would be reduced.
>>
>>Ec
>>
>I'm not so sure about that. Wouldn't it just attract people unhappy
>with the result piling up votes and requesting a recount of the
>original result? Having stuff undeleted isn't a bad thing, as long as
>there's a proper reason behind overruling the original AFD debate (new
>info, faulty closure, or lots of blanket votes).
>
Let's assume that up until the point of deletion things pretty well 
proceed as they do now.  Some minimum number of people ask to delete 
over a specified time, and no-one votes to keep.  So the article is 
deleted.  Someone comes along (It can even be the article's original 
writer, who didn't know about the deletion while the AfD was open), 
receives support from someone else, and the article is undeleted.  Any 
sysop can do this without fear of a firestorm of protest.  As *new* 
faces arrive on the scene there may indeed by a long cycle of deletions 
and undeletions on some articles, but only a limited number of articles 
will face that level of attention.  Fair standards can be established 
that will allow for this.  The heat will be less because the attention 
will have been drawn away from broad policies that some see as unjust.  
Most deletions will then, as now, probably go unnoticed in plain view.

Quite apart from the specific issues connected with a particular 
article, the irritant is the finality of deletions.  There is, to be 
sure, an available undeletion process but it is seen by many as 
cumbersome and ineffective.  It is a long standing principle that 
contributors should be prepared to have their writing severely edited, 
and that they should avoid taking personal ownership of an article.  
Should a deletion be any different?  Those who work to clean things up 
by deleting articles should not feel the need to protect their 
deletions; that's the mindset that fuels disputes.  If an article really 
should be kept deleted they should have the confidence that other new 
editors will come along to support that view.  If there really is a 
deletionist clique they will be automatically marginalized by the process.

To be clear, I am referring to general deletion policy.  This does not 
obviate the need for special policies to deal with such legal issues as 
copyright violation or defamation.

Beyond a limited number of core policy principles, static policies are 
inconsistent with the wiki.  This is sure to discomfit those individuals 
who like certainty with their rules.  Surely, there are many (possibly 
most) policies which are so well accepted that they will never change, 
but that doesn't mean that changes must not be proposed.  It's just that 
such proposals won't get anywhere.  If the wiki is going to belong to 
everybody then everybody must feel they have a hand in its policies, 
including and especially those who were not there when those policies 
were first codified.  I think it's important to learn to live with that 
kind of uncertainty and insecurity.

Ec.