[WikiEN-l] Another AfD example -- a serious proposal to fix it

Fri Jan 20 22:51:02 UTC 2006

Sean Barrett wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>David Gerard stated for the record:
>  
>
>>Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I do not know the exact solution to this problem, but this is part of an
>>>ongoing problem with have *most particularly with bios of living people
>>>and existing companies*.  "I haven't heard of this" seems to be an
>>>instant excuse for "non-notable" and "AfD", which is offensive to the
>>>subjects, when the real approach should be _at a bare minimum_ and
>>>effort at dialogue with other editors *before* jumping to a "vote".
>>>      
>>>
>>Jumping into VFD discussions with a reference to this email? Though
>>let's see how many times the obnoxious have to be hit over the head
>>with this before someone decides it's "spamming" and blocks them!
>>
>>You see what I mean when I say that AFD/DRV consider themselves worlds
>>unto themselves, and bitterly resist anything perceived as outside
>>interference, i.e. the rest of the Wikipedia infrastructure.
>>    
>>
>Many of us have been saying for a long time that the *fD gangs are doing
>active and hard-to-repair damage to the reputation of this encyclopedia.
> Of course, every time we do, the reply is an accusation that we are
>mindless inclusionist, and no serious discussion can be held.
>
It seems as if Jimbo has finally installed electricity in the outhouse, 
and now he can see the light. :-)

>Well, here's a serious proposal to encourage discussion:
>
>I propose <sigh> yet another level of bureaucracy -- a Deletion Review
>Board (which would have nothing whatsoever to do with the useless
>WP:VfU).  The Review Board would be empowered to penalize those who
>nominate and those who vote support such egregiously careless and
>/damaging/ deletions.  Deletions of unpublished garage bands can
>continue just as they do today.
>
It's not the nominations or the votes that do the harm, but the decision 
based on those votes.  We should be more interested in what happens to 
the article than to those seeking to delete it.  A merely punitive role 
doesn't do anythng for us.  I can forsee such a Review Board soon being 
taken over by the very people who are now giving everybody a headache. 

No attempt to delete for lack of notability should be considered valid 
unless there has first been a good-faith attempt to discuss it with the 
contributor so that he can improve the article.  Articles that have had 
improvements should not be on the same footings as one that is totally 
unchanged.  Votes that are time-stamped before an improvement clearly do 
not reflect a review of those changes.  Whatever timeframe is chosen 
before something can be deleted should start with the last vote rather 
than the first.  Undeletion should not be seen as some kind of personal 
attack on those who deleted the article who then feels obligated to 
defend his deletion.  Perhaps the act of undeletion should be on a par 
with one more keep vote that just starts the clock running again.

Even with all those safeguards I suspect that the vast majority of 
things that are deleted will stay deleted without much of a fuss.

Ec