On 9/9/05, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/05, Michael Turley
<michael.turley(a)gmail.com> wrote:
If the article is being edited and re-edited,
constantly being
improved enough to get certified by another user or two, I don't see
any problem at all with this type of gaming the system. In fact, I
think we should strongly encourage that type of gaming the system.
Well, I mean for articles which clearly ARE non-notable; i.e. some
vanity band page and the bassist keeps adding new information to the
article in an appeal to keep it alive. But needing another user (and
not a sockpuppet) to "certify" any requests would probably stop 90% of
that sort of "gaming".
Needing a <i>different</i> (non-sockpuppet) user to certify that the
each change warrants a restart of the vote would stop 99% of the
gaming of the system before the fifth certification, even if each of
the band members sets up an account. ;)
Stubs expand
only if they exist. This rhetorical "someone else"
seldom writes fully referenced and cited articles in one fell swoop.
Well, true. But stubs don't expand by themselves, either. (Of course,
I have to admit, I enjoy writing new, uncreated articles in on fell
swoop, in part because then I can add it to the "Did you know?" list,
and having things on the front page is very satisfying to me; not so
much for the vanity aspects, but it's one of the easiest ways to get
some attention for your articles from other editors).
YOU'RE the 'rhetorical "someone else"'??? Glad to finally meet you!
:D
The problem is that article authors have an
investment in what they
write. VfD voters usually have no investment whatsoever; when I've
called for the most basic of research of notability before voting
"delete", a three second Google search, I've been accused of making
personal attacks against delete voters. VfD will always remain toxic,
especially to new users who aren't accustomed to it's climate, if we
cannot insist that delete voters put in at least some tiny effort into
research before voting.
Sure, but I don't know how you'd get *voters* to do that without doing
something like limiting the voting pool significantly. One alternative
approach is to make *nominators* work a bit harder -- i.e., not
allowing nominations which don't reflect some sort of attempt was made
to really assess the article or not.
Sometimes (maybe most of the time), I think this is the case: a
nominator comes in, says, "Look, this biography looks like a vanity
article to me. This guy's name gets no google hits. He apparently used
to own a baseball team. Big whoop. Let's axe it." Most voters wouldn't
even have to verify this -- if only a few voters DID check up on the
nominator, one of them would likely vote "Strong Keep -- what you've
written is just plain wrong, I ran his name through Google and found
out he's president of the United States!" which would hopefully
influence other voters as well.
Sounds like a great idea; that a VfD can be ended with "Speedy Keep"
if nominators don't explain how they performed a bit of research and
what the results were. Even if the article gets nominated properly
two minutes later, this would be a huge improvement over what
frequently occurs now.
(Of course, I haven't been taking part at all in
the deletion reform,
so I shouldn't be so eager to be an armchair philosopher about it.)
On the contrary, in my opinion, you've just made some very good suggestions.
--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused