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

Sat Jan 21 07:36:24 UTC 2006

Tony Sidaway wrote:

>On 1/21/06, Travis Mason-Bushman <travis at gpsports-eng.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>I would vehemently disagree, especially when among those ten articles
>>are hoaxes, thinly veiled attack pages, vanispamcruftvertisements and
>>other such content that has the effect of actively making Wikipedia a
>>*worse* and *less authoritative* source of information.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Why should anyone consider Wikipedia to be authoritative?  It's
>written by amateurs.  But I agree that we should get rid of tripe.  
>BUt we should discuss it properly.  Jimbo is right, there is far, far
>too much emphasis on deletion.
>
>Bad articles can be identified and improved, or if there's nothing
>good about them they can be deleted.  But there should be more
>emphasis on improvement.  There should be fewer AfD listings carried
>to term.  We should encourage editors to seek innovative solutions,
>and not fetishize the deletion process.  So often these days it seems
>like a fairground ride--once the journey starts you have to keep your
>hands inside the car, and mustn't tamper with the deletion proposal. 
>Why on earth not? If an article looks like an obvious redirect
>candidate, then do it and thank you for saving us five days worth of
>debate about deletion.  Any further discussion can continue on the
>discussion page.
>  
>
 From someone in the trenches (I've been keeping [[WP:AFD/Old]] 100% 
backlog free for a week) who has disagreed with Tony before, I have to 
say that this is an excellent proposal. There's too much reliance on 
closing admins to do the work. Instead of saying "* '''Redirect''' as 
per Foo," why the hell not just redirect it?

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])