[WikiEN-l] Undeletion policy

Sat Sep 17 17:24:52 UTC 2005

Tony Sidaway wrote:

>On 9/17/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Bryan Derksen wrote:
>>
>>As for "abstain" votes on nomination for AfD, it's because there's
>>really no better place for people to say "I think there's something
>>wrong with this article, what should be done?" Just putting {{cleanup}}
>>or {{wikify}} on something won't fix it in a hurry. Putting {{afd}} on
>>it /will/.
>>    
>>
>I'm in two minds about this. Should we allow the casual use of AfD as a 
>cleanup resource? I think I'd be inclined to regard such use of AfD as 
>borderline bad faith. If someone really thinks an article needs to be 
>cleaned up, *and quickly*, he should just do a quick edit to remove whatever 
>it is that makes him uncomfortable about the article from the current 
>version. This should take a minute or so.
>
One unfortunate tendency is that people who want something cleaned up 
expect other people to do it.  Thus they become a part of the problem.  
Wikifying an article or removing something from an article (if that is 
all that is required) does not require further outside resources.  If 
those who recognize such problems on an article went ahead and did it 
the cleanup list would be a lot shorter.  Someone else going through the 
same items on the cleanup list may not even recognize what needs to be done.

Articles that need something added are a much bigger problem.  My 
experience lately in Wiktionary has been with people who refuse to cite 
sources, and who feel that it is the responsibility of those who reject 
a word to supply the proof for them.  For them it is enough proof to say 
that the word has 250 hits on Google, and it is enough to believe that 
someone else will wade through all the nonsense blogs to pull out 
anything of value.  I don't doubt that many of these terms would be kept 
if people did their proper homework; it comes down to a question of 
whose homework is it.

Ec