Another AfD example

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
101 messages Options
1234 ... 6
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Another AfD example

Jimmy Wales
I have edited the following email to me to obscure the author's
identity, changing or omitting identifying details.  My point is not
about this author but about what I perceive as a sickness in the
process.  I should note that I get at least one email of this type daily.

This email is in two parts.  The first part is the example, but if you
don't need an example to convince you that there's a problem, then
please skip to the analysis part, which is probably more important and
something we should discuss in detail.

1. THE EXAMPLE

>I am an American author.  None of my novels are vanity books.  I have
>been published outside of the USA as well as within, by  <FAMOUS
>PUBLISHER> in Italy and Methuen in Britain. One of your deleters has
>questioned my  authenticity, which I resent.
>
>I have had over a million books published over the years.  In Fantasy,
>mystery, science fiction, adventure, historical, and non fiction. I am
>a former employe of The New York Times, as well as a former
>editor-in-chief of <Fancy Magazine>, a quarterly full color magazine
>for members of <a famous organization>. I am a member of the New York
>Newspaper Guild.  I also teach creative writing, and have lectured
>widely for libraries in NY and California.
>
>I am bi coastal sharing my time in New York and California.
>
>I would like my entry corrected.

It took me all of 2 minutes to confirm that:
(a) All of the things this author says are true
(b) He's actually being modest about his accomplishments
(c) our VfD page is ludicrous

The nominator raises the possibility that the presses of his books are
vanity presses.  A quick check shows presses such as Fawcett and Playboy
Paperbacks, neither of which (obviously) are vanity presses.

2. THE ANALYSIS

I think one of the core problems here is that the original nominator
should have raised the issue on the talk page of the article!!!  We have
gotten to a cultural state where "Gee, I never heard of this" seems to
be a good enough excuse to nominate something for deletion, RATHER THAN
raising legitimate issues on the talk page first to see if anyone can
help improve the article.

In this case, the nominator should have said "Gee, I never heard of
Fawcett or Playboy, and this New York Times thing sounds fishy, and I
looked in Google and found only n listings for the name, so I wonder if
there's a problem here.

Then, pop a note on the talk page.  "Hey everybody, I don't know much
about publishing or science fiction, but I never heard of this guy and
had trouble verifying the information.  It's probably my own lack of
searching skills, so I wonder if anyone can help me out here.  Is this
article as good as it could be?"

I went through a rather tortured process yesterday in which I had to
really put my foot down to put a stop to a CfD vote which was taking
place without _any_ community dialogue or discussion first.

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".

--Jimbo
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another AfD example

David Gerard-2
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>I went through a rather tortured process yesterday in which I had to
>really put my foot down to put a stop to a CfD vote which was taking
>place without _any_ community dialogue or discussion first.


This appears to be the preferred way of proceeding for many: try to
beat a bad idea into the ground *rather than* discuss it.

Presumably, that's the way COMMUNITY CONSENSUS works!


- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another AfD example

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Jimmy Wales
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.


- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another AfD example -- a serious proposal to fix it

Sean Barrett-2
-----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.

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.

The penalties would be limited, perhaps to simply to "time-outs" of
various lengths -- prohibitions from participating in any *fD process --
and would primarily serve as a way of getting the attention of the
offenders that /they are damaging the encyclopedia/ with their
thoughtless assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks.  Any offenses
too great for that level of penalty would be dealt with by the ArbComm.

I would appreciate discussion of this suggestion, particularly by Jimbo
and my fellow ArbCommies.  Starting question: should we bash on it here,
or take it to a Meta page?

- --
 Sean Barrett     | The last thing I want to do is hurt
 [hidden email] | you. But it's still on the list.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD0Rj1MAt1wyd9d+URAraZAJ9Gw4gFI3T6XXu3t7G1AjuPtC3BKgCePy/w
y8W431jTSrZBH5UUr6ETo+A=
=yxLa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another AfD example

Kirill Lokshin
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On 1/20/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> >I went through a rather tortured process yesterday in which I had to
> >really put my foot down to put a stop to a CfD vote which was taking
> >place without _any_ community dialogue or discussion first.
>
>
> This appears to be the preferred way of proceeding for many: try to
> beat a bad idea into the ground *rather than* discuss it.
>
> Presumably, that's the way COMMUNITY CONSENSUS works!

That seems to be the trend throughout Wikipedia; I'm sure that you can
recall a number of cases in the recent past where trying to delete
things without attempting to engage in discussion has caused trouble
;-)

The solution is to stop treating all of these issues with such
urgency.  Nobody will die because Article X or Category Y exist in a
"bad" state for a few days while we talk things over.

Our byzantine system of deletion rules doesn't help, of course;
there's an enormous benefit to getting an AFD result on something
quickly, since it can then be used to bludgeon everyone else (with the
"re-creation of deleted material" CSD clause, or simply to cry that
there was "no consensus to delete/merge/whatever" if anyone tries to
make major changes).

The other option would be to transwiki "Don't be a dick" back to en:
and to link to it prominently on every policy page ;-)

Kirill Lokshin
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another AfD example

Garion1000
In reply to this post by Jimmy Wales
On 1/20/06, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> I think one of the core problems here is that the original nominator
> should have raised the issue on the talk page of the article!!!  We have
> gotten to a cultural state where "Gee, I never heard of this" seems to
> be a good enough excuse to nominate something for deletion, RATHER THAN
> raising legitimate issues on the talk page first to see if anyone can
> help improve the article.
>
> In this case, the nominator should have said "Gee, I never heard of
> Fawcett or Playboy, and this New York Times thing sounds fishy, and I
> looked in Google and found only n listings for the name, so I wonder if
> there's a problem here.
>
> Then, pop a note on the talk page.  "Hey everybody, I don't know much
> about publishing or science fiction, but I never heard of this guy and
> had trouble verifying the information.  It's probably my own lack of
> searching skills, so I wonder if anyone can help me out here.  Is this
> article as good as it could be?"
>
> I went through a rather tortured process yesterday in which I had to
> really put my foot down to put a stop to a CfD vote which was taking
> place without _any_ community dialogue or discussion first.
>
> 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".
>
> --Jimbo
> _______________________________________________



 Here's an idea.

Why not add a template to the article/category/whatever talk's page. Stating
that a discussion about this article is warranted, for whatever reason
(notability, bad category and so forth).  So that a category is created with
all those articles and people can have a say on it on the article's talk
page. If after a month or so of discussion people still agree that it should
be deleted, then it can go to AFD/CFD etc.

Of course, no '''Delete'''' 's or ''''Keep'''' 's should be on that
article's talk page.

Garion
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another AfD example

Garion1000
On 1/20/06, Garion1000 <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>  Here's an idea.
>
> Why not add a template to the article/category/whatever talk's page.
> Stating that a discussion about this article is warranted, for whatever
> reason (notability, bad category and so forth).  So that a category is
> created with all those articles and people can have a say on it on the
> article's talk page. If after a month or so of discussion people still agree
> that it should be deleted, then it can go to AFD/CFD etc.
>
> Of course, no '''Delete'''' 's or ''''Keep'''' 's should be on that
> article's talk page.
>
> Garion
>
>

Hmm, clicked on the wrong button. Wanted to discard that message after I
checked wikipedia deletions and read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_reform/Brainstorming#Decentralise
and
other idea's there.

Garion
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another AfD example

geni
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On 1/20/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> >I went through a rather tortured process yesterday in which I had to
> >really put my foot down to put a stop to a CfD vote which was taking
> >place without _any_ community dialogue or discussion first.
>
>
> This appears to be the preferred way of proceeding for many: try to
> beat a bad idea into the ground *rather than* discuss it.
>
> Presumably, that's the way COMMUNITY CONSENSUS works!
>
>
> - d.


When someone is trying to inforce a bad idea on you it is general
human respond in kind. Comunication lines do need to be improved.
--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another AfD example -- a serious proposal to fix it

geni
In reply to this post by Sean Barrett-2
On 1/20/06, Sean Barrett <[hidden email]> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> The penalties would be limited, perhaps to simply to "time-outs" of
> various lengths -- prohibitions from participating in any *fD process --
> and would primarily serve as a way of getting the attention of the
> offenders that /they are damaging the encyclopedia/ with their
> thoughtless assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks.  Any offenses
> too great for that level of penalty would be dealt with by the ArbComm.
>
> I would appreciate discussion of this suggestion, particularly by Jimbo
> and my fellow ArbCommies.  Starting question: should we bash on it here,
> or take it to a Meta page?
>
> - --


So no action against those who vote to keep stuff that should be
deleted? Remeber a keep vote is worth more than a delete vot on AFD.

--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another AfD example

Sean Barrett-2
In reply to this post by geni
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

geni stated for the record:

> On 1/20/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I went through a rather tortured process yesterday in which I had to
>>>really put my foot down to put a stop to a CfD vote which was taking
>>>place without _any_ community dialogue or discussion first.
>>
>>
>>This appears to be the preferred way of proceeding for many: try to
>>beat a bad idea into the ground *rather than* discuss it.
>>
>>Presumably, that's the way COMMUNITY CONSENSUS works!
>>
>>
>>- d.
>
>
>
> When someone is trying to inforce a bad idea on you it is general
> human respond in kind. Comunication lines do need to be improved.
> --
> geni

Yes, that makes sense when the idea is bad, but what about in this case?

- --
 Sean Barrett     | I'm not a hero! I'm just an actor with a gun
 [hidden email] | who's lost his motivation. --Bruce Baxter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD0S0JMAt1wyd9d+URAlt7AJ99/ef+GRyZtvlKP6BhEWM42if1TwCdHRe9
pbtBRDtWGvUyvZoWcIaZZQk=
=ltTr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another AfD example -- a serious proposal to fix it

Sean Barrett-2
In reply to this post by geni
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

geni stated for the record:

> On 1/20/06, Sean Barrett <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>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.
>>
>>The penalties would be limited, perhaps to simply to "time-outs" of
>>various lengths -- prohibitions from participating in any *fD process --
>>and would primarily serve as a way of getting the attention of the
>>offenders that /they are damaging the encyclopedia/ with their
>>thoughtless assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks.  Any offenses
>>too great for that level of penalty would be dealt with by the ArbComm.
>>
>>I would appreciate discussion of this suggestion, particularly by Jimbo
>>and my fellow ArbCommies.  Starting question: should we bash on it here,
>>or take it to a Meta page?
>>
>
> So no action against those who vote to keep stuff that should be
> deleted? Remeber a keep vote is worth more than a delete vot on AFD.
>
> --
> geni

No, no action.  An erroneous "keep" is harms no one, since copyvios,
attacks and libel, and similar damaging material are not subject to
Votes for Deletion.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | I'm not a hero! I'm just an actor with a gun
 [hidden email] | who's lost his motivation. --Bruce Baxter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD0S3bMAt1wyd9d+URAubKAJ0Xc+MB4RFHWLHd2ufO1BeV7aqM0gCaAt/8
3soYr46wGYsUjxhBXvoQevk=
=a4MZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another AfD example

geni
In reply to this post by Sean Barrett-2
On 1/20/06, Sean Barrett <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Yes, that makes sense when the idea is bad, but what about in this case?

It is a bad idea. Unless there is a plan to change the way the
software works wrt catigories. It won't even result in the creation of
a useable list.

--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another AfD example -- a serious proposal to fix it

geni
In reply to this post by Sean Barrett-2
On 1/20/06, Sean Barrett <[hidden email]> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> geni stated for the record:
>
> > On 1/20/06, Sean Barrett <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>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.
> >>
> >>The penalties would be limited, perhaps to simply to "time-outs" of
> >>various lengths -- prohibitions from participating in any *fD process --
> >>and would primarily serve as a way of getting the attention of the
> >>offenders that /they are damaging the encyclopedia/ with their
> >>thoughtless assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks.  Any offenses
> >>too great for that level of penalty would be dealt with by the ArbComm.
> >>
> >>I would appreciate discussion of this suggestion, particularly by Jimbo
> >>and my fellow ArbCommies.  Starting question: should we bash on it here,
> >>or take it to a Meta page?
> >>
> >
> > So no action against those who vote to keep stuff that should be
> > deleted? Remeber a keep vote is worth more than a delete vot on AFD.
> >
> > --
> > geni
>
> No, no action.  An erroneous "keep" is harms no one, since copyvios,
> attacks and libel, and similar damaging material are not subject to
> Votes for Deletion.
>

Have you ever tried to bring up issues of copyright violation on AFD?
I have. I got kinda outvoted (to be fair the subject was to do with
schools).

Hoaxes are subject to AFD. Are you going to claim that voteing to keep
them does no damage?

--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another AfD example -- a serious proposal to fix it

Sean Barrett-2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

geni stated for the record:

> On 1/20/06, Sean Barrett <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>geni stated for the record:
>>
>>>So no action against those who vote to keep stuff that should be
>>>deleted? Remeber a keep vote is worth more than a delete vot on AFD.
>>>
>>>--
>>>geni
>>
>>No, no action.  An erroneous "keep" is harms no one, since copyvios,
>>attacks and libel, and similar damaging material are not subject to
>>Votes for Deletion.
>
>
> Have you ever tried to bring up issues of copyright violation on AFD?
> I have. I got kinda outvoted (to be fair the subject was to do with
> schools).
>
> Hoaxes are subject to AFD. Are you going to claim that voteing to keep
> them does no damage?
>
> --
> geni

Good point.  Allow me to modify my proposal accordingly: anyone whose
vote shows a culpable lack of elementary research should be penalized.
This would include both those who deleted Jimbo's example that began
this discussion, and those who /carelessly/ vote "keep" on fraudulent
material.

Note that in both cases "I did my research but that was too subtle"
ought to be considered as a defense.  For example, both "okay, so he's
genuinely notable in Kyrgyzstan, but I don't read Kyrgyzyse and that's
the only language he's been published in" and "okay, so it's a hoax, but
numerous credentialed scientists were also taken in" would be considered
as mitigating factors by the Review Board.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | I'm not a hero! I'm just an actor with a gun
 [hidden email] | who's lost his motivation. --Bruce Baxter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD0TnHMAt1wyd9d+URAseDAJ9IgyPAbgUb/xktBLnQZ18//pU8QwCdEa98
Psz2Wz6vtfaFz4O6eZCiDyU=
=alEz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another AfD example -- a serious proposal to fix it

geni
On 1/20/06, Sean Barrett <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Good point.  Allow me to modify my proposal accordingly: anyone whose
> vote shows a culpable lack of elementary research should be penalized.
> This would include both those who deleted Jimbo's example that began
> this discussion, and those who /carelessly/ vote "keep" on fraudulent
> material.
>
> Note that in both cases "I did my research but that was too subtle"
> ought to be considered as a defense.  For example, both "okay, so he's
> genuinely notable in Kyrgyzstan, but I don't read Kyrgyzyse and that's
> the only language he's been published in" and "okay, so it's a hoax, but
> numerous credentialed scientists were also taken in" would be considered
> as mitigating factors by the Review Board.
>
> - --
>  Sean Barrett

Ok now it we've got it reframed so it is not such an obvious attempt
to push inclusionism lets move onto the buracratic bit. While it
appears the board at least favors increasing committes and the like:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions

(looking at that you start to wounder if the foundation is running the
EU as well)

The general wikipedia community tends to be less in favor. Where would
these board members come from?

Anyway if you want to try and go forward with this you need to start
discussing this on wikipedia as soon as posible.~~~~

--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another AfD example -- a serious proposal to fix it

gamaliel8
In reply to this post by Sean Barrett-2
This would be a kangaroo court waiting to happen.

We should of course do more to encourage research before someone submits
something for deletion.  However, people have different research skills,
different access to resources for doing so, and differing opinions on where
to set the bar for inclusion.  So this "review board" would either confine
itself to the worst offenses (like the guy who put up [[Jean-Luc Picard]]
for deletion), which can be covered by normal admins and WP:POINT anyway, or
have a chilling effect on WP by essentially criminalizing differences of
opinion.

Submitting an article to AfD really should be no big deal.  Things that
shouldn't be deleted get nominated, but that doesn't mean the sky is
falling.  Just vote keep and get on with editing.

On 1/20/06, Sean Barrett <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> 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.
>
> The penalties would be limited, perhaps to simply to "time-outs" of
> various lengths -- prohibitions from participating in any *fD process --
> and would primarily serve as a way of getting the attention of the
> offenders that /they are damaging the encyclopedia/ with their
> thoughtless assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks.  Any offenses
> too great for that level of penalty would be dealt with by the ArbComm.
>
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another AfD example -- a serious proposal to fix it

Sean Barrett-2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Rob stated for the record:

> This would be a kangaroo court waiting to happen.
>
> We should of course do more to encourage research before someone submits
> something for deletion.  However, people have different research skills,
> different access to resources for doing so, and differing opinions on where
> to set the bar for inclusion.  So this "review board" would either confine
> itself to the worst offenses (like the guy who put up [[Jean-Luc Picard]]
> for deletion), which can be covered by normal admins and WP:POINT anyway, or
> have a chilling effect on WP by essentially criminalizing differences of
> opinion.
>
> Submitting an article to AfD really should be no big deal.  Things that
> shouldn't be deleted get nominated, but that doesn't mean the sky is
> falling.  Just vote keep and get on with editing.

I'm afraid your casual dismissal of the issue will not make it go away.

Since you haven't been paying attention, I'll recapitulate: Jimbo
receives e-mail messages /at least daily/ from outsiders wondering why
"we" [the AfD gang] are so nasty and insulting as we delete
easily-verified information about highly notable people.  The AfD gang
is actively doing damage to Wikipedia's reputation on a on-going, daily
basis.

Will these assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks make the sky
fall?  No, the servers won't even crash.  Is this continuing harm to the
encyclopedia a real issue that must be fixed promptly because the rate
is accelerating?  Yes.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | I'm not a hero! I'm just an actor with a gun
 [hidden email] | who's lost his motivation. --Bruce Baxter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD0U6cMAt1wyd9d+URAmMLAKCGOE6AEPvwaXsBlgioT+rKf5SuOwCggsmz
6+fyJE/qM+pF9A6Enk4OnB0=
=kxwb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another AfD example -- a serious proposal to fix it

gamaliel8
Yes, I've been paying attention, thanks.  I've personally gone to a number
of message boards to discuss AfDs with groups who are offended by an AfD
discussion. Usually patient discussion and explanation works wonders.
Perhaps a "So you've been nominated for deletion" page would be helpful in
this manner as well.

Is it a problem?  Yes, but I think your proposed solution would be an
infinitely larger problem.

On 1/20/06, Sean Barrett <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I'm afraid your casual dismissal of the issue will not make it go away.
>
> Since you haven't been paying attention, I'll recapitulate: Jimbo
> receives e-mail messages /at least daily/ from outsiders wondering why
> "we" [the AfD gang] are so nasty and insulting as we delete
> easily-verified information about highly notable people.  The AfD gang
> is actively doing damage to Wikipedia's reputation on a on-going, daily
> basis.
>
> Will these assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks make the sky
> fall?  No, the servers won't even crash.  Is this continuing harm to the
> encyclopedia a real issue that must be fixed promptly because the rate
> is accelerating?  Yes.
>
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another AfD example -- a serious proposal to fix it

Kat Walsh
On 1/20/06, Rob <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Yes, I've been paying attention, thanks.  I've personally gone to a number
> of message boards to discuss AfDs with groups who are offended by an AfD
> discussion. Usually patient discussion and explanation works wonders.
> Perhaps a "So you've been nominated for deletion" page would be helpful in
> this manner as well.

I like the "so you've been nominated for deletion" page idea.

I also like the idea of "speedy keep" being more widely used; if
someone comes up with a really strong justification for why something
should not be deleted, particularly if it completely rebuts the
nominator's reason for nominating it, why waste time arguing about it?

Perhaps this is what a "deletion cabal" could do: simply make the call
to speedy pull a nomination, rather than penalize the nominator. I'd
imagine anyone whose nominations were continually getting pulled for
being inappropriate would eventually start to think about them more,
no penalty necessary.

-Kat
Potentially Awful Ideas R Us

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:LucidWaking
"Once you have tasted flight you will always walk with your eyes cast
upward. For there you have been and there you will always be."
- Leonardo da Vinci
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another AfD example

Tony Sidaway-3
In reply to this post by Jimmy Wales
On 1/20/06, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]> 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".
>

I've had three companies pop up on my radar recently.  Two I've
already written about in Pointless deletions. Another has shown up on
deletion review where there is all kind of petty quibbling over a
company that on its website gives actual case studies--which I've no
reason to doubt are accurate and are in any case verfiable--involving
really major customers such as Camden Borough Council, BP Upstream and
so on.  There is some discussion but it seems mostly to be along the
lines of "well it doesn't meet [NAME OF STRINGENT GUIDELINE] so it was
a valid deletion."  Why are we deleting stuff like this for such
pusilanimous reasons?
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
1234 ... 6