[WikiEN-l] Pointless deletions

Thu Jan 19 08:23:46 UTC 2006

Brock Batsell wrote:

> I attempted to make it clear that Wikipedia has guidelines and  
> policies that must be followed by all of its editors, so that clutter  
> and cruft can be eliminated and we can get to work on writing an  
> encyclopedia.

The error here is in thinking that guidelines *must* be followed.  
Guidelines *should* be followed, but there should be no penalty when 
just trying something different.  It may even be a better idea..  As for 
"clutter" and "cruft", we all know that there is no single opinion about 
what qualifies as such.

> I also encouraged him to bring up his problems with  those policies 
> and guidelines on the respective talk pages in order  to effect change 
> in Wikipedia. 

So then he makes his comments on the article's talk page, and after a 
week there's no response at all.  Can we blame him for believing that 
silence is consent.

> Now I (and he) see a longtime administrator and respected editor  
> making a liar out of me, completely ignoring the processes that  
> volunteers long before I arrived worked to hammer out in order to  
> make this encyclopedia the best it can be. 

To have an effective wiki there must be reasonable avenues for 
questioning those early process decisions.  Except for a handful of key 
principles all decisions and processes should be open for 
reconsideration.  This includes many that probably never will be 
questioned.  The handful that are beyond question can probably be put on 
one screen without ever needing to scroll. 

> For the record, I completely agree that this article should not have  
> been deleted, as do most people on this list.  But your complete  
> disregard for anyone with a differing opinion is astonishing.  How  
> much effort did explaining this undeletion and enforcing it require  
> with regard to its reward (one article is undeleted that should not  
> have been deleted)?  Wouldn't this time have been better spent  
> advocating a change in the written policy that led to its deletion,  
> so that your work can benefit thousands of similar articles? 

Some people feel that it's a more valuable use of time to be working to 
improve our encyclopedia  than to engage in endless wrangling over 
policy detailsa.

> The user I worked with had very strong views that he had thought out  
> quite well, although they were contrary to policy.  He used his  
> noggin just fine.  Unfortunately, just using your noggin and ignoring  
> the noggins of other people (otherwise known as consensus) is not how  
> Wikipedia was built, and it's not how it will be built in the  
> future.  You know that as well as I do. 

For consensus to be meaningful his ideas need a fair hearing.  That 
means that there needs to be some attempt at finding some way to 
accomodate the new views that he is introducing.  If that cannot be done 
the pre-existing consensus is no longer a consensus. 

Ec