[WikiEN-l] Article deletion

Tue Sep 13 15:07:09 UTC 2005

On 9/13/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Michael Turley wrote:
> > On 9/13/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Michael Turley wrote:
> >>
> >>>I suggest we consider adding an optional "hidden from casual browsers"
> >>>flag to Wikipedia article records, so that we would have a two level
> >>>deletion system: complete crap gets speedied, bad articles get deleted
> >>>as usual, good articles get kept as usual, and questionable articles
> >>>are shuffled off to limbo where they can be further developed before
> >>>being put back into the main articlespace.  (I'm not even sure how
> >>>much I like this idea myself, but thought I'd throw it out there.)
> >>>
> >>
> >>TINC.
> >
> >
> > I don't see how that applies here.  Please explain what you mean.
> >
> 
> How do we decide what is visible to which editors? Should they be
> visible only to sysops, or only to logged in editors? Or only editors
> with a certain number of edits? Or accounts which are not in the newest
> 1% (a la page moves)?

Well, I'm open to other ideas, but the way I envisioned it, it would
be a separate article space that is open to everyone, but not
immediately visible from the front page, nor included in searches
unless explicitly included.

Call it "article limbo" or "marginal articles" or "not quite
encyclopedic enough to suit the general public, but this is a pretty
close try articles" if you will, but I wouldn't lock the content away
from anyone.  Instead, just put it in a virtual cupboard, away from
casual view where editors who are interested can work the articles
without the timeline and "reconvince the delete voters" pressure, and
then later appeal to have them brought into the main articlespace when
they're ready.

We'd have the more scholarly, enforced to traditional standards
Wikipedia that would keep the articles suitable for print versions,
and the second level Limbopedia where editors are somewhat more free
to pursue their own interests and share more localized, more specific
knowledge without accusations of "cruft" and "not notable enough". 
Maybe most stubs would reside there, maybe not, I don't know.  An
internal fork, to make the main project more aligned with its goals,
with the daughter project serving as an additional development area. 
Or maybe we should fork upward, with a brand new empty space to
nominate our best articles into...

I still see room for argument, but since there would be more middle
ground for resolution, I think we'd see more people finding middle
ground.

(And speaking personally about an issue I care deeply about, I'd
expect almost all school articles to reside in limbo, even though we
almost always keep them now, and even though I think they almost
always belong in the main article space...  I should shut up before
someone thinks this is a good idea...)

-- 
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused