[WikiEN-l] Why changing the deletion process is a bad idea

Wed Sep 14 20:58:15 UTC 2005

On 9/14/05, Keith Old <keithold at gmail.com> wrote:
> Geoff,
> 
> I realise that voters of Articles for Deletion need to sensitive to peoples
> opinions when voting. Having said this, I would object rather strongly if an
> admin closed a vote in Articles for Deletion on the grounds that a voter
> referred to the subject as not being notable.
> 
> After all, one of the reasons for Speedy Deletion is that an article has not
> established notability of the subject. As well, the main reason for keeping
> an article is the belief that a user might find information on the subject
> useful. In other words, the topic of the article is notable within a certain
> field of study.
> 
> As for cruft, I never use the word myself as one man's cruft is another
> man's interest. Having said this, I don't think an admin should close a vote
> on such a trivial ground and I would support it being relisted as soon as
> possible.
> 
> I think that we will always need an Articles of Deletion process and I think
> that this system works as well as any could. It should aim to encourage as
> much participation as possible so should be open to all users.
> 
> Regards
> 
> 
> 
> Keith
> User Name: Capitalistroadster
> 
> On 9/15/05, Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, JAY JG wrote:
> >
> > > >From: Snowspinner <Snowspinner at gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > >On Sep 14, 2005, at 12:09 PM, Phroziac wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>On 9/14/05, Snowspinner <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>I would rather have an encyclopedia that has a truly staggering
> > > >>>amount of information but that some people dismiss because it has
> > > >>>some silly articles than a well-respected but heavily incomplete
> > > >>>encyclopedia. If I wanted that, I'd just go to Britannica.
> > > >>>
> > > >>Isn't that exactly why we exist?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >I always thought so.
> > >
> > > We exist to create a great encyclopedia. I don't see how an encyclopedia
> >
> > > filled with, as you put it, "silly articles", can ever be considered
> > > "great".
> > >
> > I agree with Jay here (& I hope that doesn't surprise him too much ;).
> >
> > Consider Wikipedia is a form of publication: currently we have the
> > lowest threshold I can imagine for acceptance of any publication. All
> > you have to do is submit an article that contains information that is
> > somehow useful. (Please ignore any need to define "useful" for the
> > moment.)
> >
> > By establishing a threshold, we end up rejecting material -- for
> > good or bad reasons -- which will inevitably result in hurt feelings.
> > (That is why in the publishing world rejection slips are so impersonal.)
> > Hurt feelings -- & the fact a certain percentage of submissions are
> > simply dreadful, unusable or submitted as a joke -- result in the
> > "toxic atmosphere" of the deletion process.
> >
> > And we can't rely on only a "Speedy Delete" process: there will always
> > be cases that fall into the grey area, if for no other reason than the
> > need for a second opinion. And, as Tony Sideway pointed out above, some
> > items are incorrectly placed into CSD -- for whatever reason.
> >
> > The only solution to this is to COMPLETELY ABOLISH this threshold:
> > either we have one or we don't have one. However, if we have no
> > threshold, then we have to deal with unuseful articles full of gibberish,
> > unfixable POV rants, hoaxes, & biographical entries that contain nothing
> > more than a date of birth, details of education, & details of personality.
> > Perhaps because we can somehow hide them in Wikipedia, we can argue that
> > they aren't a problem -- but left unchecked, these unuseful articles
> > will accumulate & grow into a problem.
> >
> > Although I believe we need a threshold for Wikipedia, we also should
> > acknowledge that in most cases an article was submitted with the best
> > of intentions: since we are knifing someone's baby, there is no need
> > to express glee while doing so. It appears to me that there is a
> > consensus that the words "cruft" & "notable" should not be used in AfD:
> > would anyone object if I edit the opening page & explain that use of
> > either of these words will result with the nomination being immediately
> > closed as a Speedy Keep?
> >
> > Geoff
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> 
Geoff, Keith.

Sometimes there's people that can word something a lot better than others.
In this case I heartily agree with both your last posts. I couldn't
have said it better myself.

--Mgm