[WikiEN-l] Re: One Where We Blew It

Fri Sep 9 14:04:27 UTC 2005

On 9/9/05, BJörn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com> wrote:
> That happens. It rarely works however, because those who do not know
> are unwilling to change their vote or are "drive-by VfD-voters." That
> is, votes on an article then goes to the next one and votes again
> completely forgetting about the first article. Besides, with the
> VfD-scheme those who do know only have a few days to prove themselves.
> Which is not a lot of time if you have other things to do than edit an
> encyclopedia.

I don't know about frequencies, but I do agree that what you have
described happens. Personally I think it would be nice if there were
standards by which to request a re-vote. That is, a given voter could
say, "This article has been significantly changed since it was
originally nominated and the original nominating criteria may no
longer apply. I'd like to re-list this and see what happens." Maybe
one or two users could certify it or something like that. Of course
you'd want some restrictions on it so that people don't try to "game
the system" by re-listing and re-listing. Hmm. Anyway, just a passing
thought.

Of course, regardless, it is *still* up to those writing the articles
to make their notability clear when they write it. An argument from
authority is useless on an anonymous encyclopedia. If the topic really
is that notable, someone else will write the notable article at a
later point, one would think.

FF