Can anything be done about Deletion Review?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
47 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Can anything be done about Deletion Review?

David Gerard-2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Can anything be done about Deletion Review?

geni
On 9/9/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_September_7#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FEsoteric_programming_languages

Stop screwing up deletions in the first place?
--
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: Can anything be done about Deletion Review?

David Gerard-2
On 09/09/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 9/9/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_September_7#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FEsoteric_programming_languages

> Stop screwing up deletions in the first place?


You're on your way to setting a new record for clear helpfulness in
your responses.


- 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: Can anything be done about Deletion Review?

geni
On 9/9/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> You're on your way to setting a new record for clear helpfulness in
> your responses.

It is however the correct answer. DRV only exists because there are
screwups elsewhere.


In this case I fail to see a problem. The issue can usefully be
discussed (although I thought the schools issue had taught us that AFD
was not the place to sort out this kind of thing) and as long as no
one trys add "mediawiki template code" to our list of Esoteric
programming languages no one will have done anything terminaly stupid.
In any case part of the point of  m:Instruction creep is that you
sould not generalise from indivdual cases. If you have a problem with
that case go and comment there. Something which you have not done.

Considering what it does DRV does as well as can reasonably be
expected. Yes there is drama but that is normaly due to actions
elsewhere.

--
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: Can anything be done about Deletion Review?

Matthew Brown-5
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
Biggest bug here is in all the "Endorse process" votes ...

-Matt
_______________________________________________
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: Can anything be done about Deletion Review?

Gregory Maxwell
In reply to this post by geni
On 9/9/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
[snip]
> It is however the correct answer. DRV only exists because there are
> screwups elsewhere.
[snip]

Evidence?

As far as I can tell DRV exists because there was a group of users who
didn't feel like they were given enough control over Wikipedia... so
another page was required to give a larger audience their power fix.

Wikipedia (tm) The free content encyclopedia where everyone is CEO.
_______________________________________________
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: Can anything be done about Deletion Review?

geni
On 9/9/06, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 9/9/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > It is however the correct answer. DRV only exists because there are
> > screwups elsewhere.
> [snip]
>
> Evidence?
>

Because if every deletion was perfect it would be easy to argue that
it was not needed.

> As far as I can tell DRV exists because there was a group of users who
> didn't feel like they were given enough control over Wikipedia... so
> another page was required to give a larger audience their power fix.
>

That isn't a very nice way to talk about inclusionists.
--
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: Can anything be done about Deletion Review?

Philip Sandifer-2
On Sep 9, 2006, at 4:56 PM, geni wrote:

>
> That isn't a very nice way to talk about inclusionists.

You're confusing DRV with VfU. VfU was the very nice page we used to  
have where deletions could be contested. DRV is what happened when  
the deletionists got mad that VFU was being used to give articles a  
"second chance," and so they overwhelmed all sense and made it so  
that you couldn't undelete an article on the grounds that the outcome  
was idiotic.

Unfortunately, this didn't actually put an end to AfD coming to  
idiotic conclusions, leaving us without a good mechanism in place to  
deal with that - a particular problem considering the continued  
belief of some AfD regulars that AfDs that close "delete" all mean  
"and salt the earth so that this article may never rise again."

Best,
Phil Sandifer
[hidden email]

You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a  
boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
 >


_______________________________________________
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: Can anything be done about Deletion Review?

geni
On 9/9/06, Phil Sandifer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sep 9, 2006, at 4:56 PM, geni wrote:
>
> >
> > That isn't a very nice way to talk about inclusionists.
>
> You're confusing DRV with VfU. VfU was the very nice page we used to
> have where deletions could be contested. DRV is what happened when
> the deletionists got mad that VFU was being used to give articles a
> "second chance," and so they overwhelmed all sense and made it so
> that you couldn't undelete an article on the grounds that the outcome
> was idiotic.
>

Ah no. VFU was traditionaly controled by process wonks who largely
managed to keep the deletionist/inclusionist wars elsewhere. The
inclusionists were understandible upset that from time to time a
school would somehow get deleted. Eventualy they managed to get
together in large enough  numbers to start deletion wars on VfU
although haveing to deal with the problem that they needed more than a
majority to get their way did slow them down. About this time the use
of wikipedia newspeak became manditory and the title was changed to
DRV. Thus we have today.

Isn't revisionist history fun?


--
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: Can anything be done about Deletion Review?

Maru Dubshinki
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On 9/9/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 09/09/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 9/9/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_September_7#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FEsoteric_programming_languages
>
> > Stop screwing up deletions in the first place?
>
>
> You're on your way to setting a new record for clear helpfulness in
> your responses.
>
>
> - d.

Ah, but you already set it for your original message.

~maru
_______________________________________________
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: Can anything be done about Deletion Review?

draicone@gmail.com
Let alone all subsequent replies.

But honestly, 'stop screwing up deletions in the first place' is the perfect
solution, its just impossible to implement. I say for every controversial
AfD closure or prod, 3 sysops have to take a call and article is only
deleted if 2 of 3 vote delete.

On 9/10/06, maru dubshinki <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 9/9/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 09/09/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > On 9/9/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_September_7#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FEsoteric_programming_languages
> >
> > > Stop screwing up deletions in the first place?
> >
> >
> > You're on your way to setting a new record for clear helpfulness in
> > your responses.
> >
> >
> > - d.
>
> Ah, but you already set it for your original message.
>
> ~maru
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
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: Can anything be done about Deletion Review?

Carl Peterson-2
In reply to this post by Matthew Brown-5
Speaking of process votes, one of the biggest problems I see with DRV is
that it becomes a second AFD. For example, if you look at the DRV for the
CVU you'll notice that most of the comments (including some of my own) had
more to do with the original delete/keep discussion that took place in the
MfD than it did with whether or not policy was followed in the way the MfD
was closed.

Carl

On 9/9/06, Matt Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Biggest bug here is in all the "Endorse process" votes ...
>
> -Matt
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
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: Can anything be done about Deletion Review?

Bryan Derksen
In reply to this post by Matthew Brown-5
Matt Brown wrote:
> Biggest bug here is in all the "Endorse process" votes ...

Indeed. Any process that results in a group nomination of 61 articles
and allows both group votes and individual voting on each specific
article like this is a horrendous mess. What sense can possibly be made
of all the "keep most" and "delete most" votes?


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

signature.asc (258 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Can anything be done about Deletion Review?

draicone@gmail.com
On 9/10/06, Bryan Derksen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Indeed. Any process that results in a group nomination of 61 articles
> and allows both group votes and individual voting on each specific
> article like this is a horrendous mess. What sense can possibly be made
> of all the "keep most" and "delete most" votes?
Absolutely. Each article should have some form of individual entry
with a quick method of voting for or against, and an overall comments
section at the bottom. Then again, the whole deletion review principle
appears to serve an insignificant and problematic need. Maybe a MfD?
_______________________________________________
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: Can anything be done about Deletion Review?

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
Akash Mehta wrote:

> On 9/10/06, Bryan Derksen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Indeed. Any process that results in a group nomination of 61 articles
>> and allows both group votes and individual voting on each specific
>> article like this is a horrendous mess. What sense can possibly be made
>> of all the "keep most" and "delete most" votes?
>
> Absolutely. Each article should have some form of individual entry
> with a quick method of voting for or against, and an overall comments
> section at the bottom. Then again, the whole deletion review principle
> appears to serve an insignificant and problematic need. Maybe a MfD?
>
... of DRV? Excellent idea.

PS. I've never been too fond of the name "Deletion review" - sounds like
 some sort of revisionist history/slander site...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

signature.asc (581 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Can anything be done about Deletion Review?

draicone@gmail.com
On 9/10/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Maybe a MfD?
> >
>
> ... of DRV? Excellent idea.
>
> PS. I've never been too fond of the name "Deletion review" - sounds like
> some sort of revisionist history/slander site...
Well, I personally felt it fitted into the 'Miscellany' thing well.
Didn't CVU have an MfD? And deletion review (from a en:wp perspective)
seems like a policy to handle a policy (deletion policy) to handle
stuff that fails policy.
_______________________________________________
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: Can anything be done about Deletion Review?

geni
In reply to this post by draicone@gmail.com
On 9/10/06, Akash Mehta <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Absolutely. Each article should have some form of individual entry
> with a quick method of voting for or against, and an overall comments
> section at the bottom. Then again, the whole deletion review principle
> appears to serve an insignificant and problematic need. Maybe a MfD?

This possibility was discussed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion/WikiProject_Wikipedians_for_Decency#Nominated_for_deletion

I think it was generaly assumed it was a bad idea.

--
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: Can anything be done about Deletion Review?

Guy Chapman aka JzG
In reply to this post by Carl Peterson-2
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 20:23:11 -0400, "Carl Peterson"
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>Speaking of process votes, one of the biggest problems I see with DRV is
>that it becomes a second AFD. For example, if you look at the DRV for the
>CVU you'll notice that most of the comments (including some of my own) had
>more to do with the original delete/keep discussion that took place in the
>MfD than it did with whether or not policy was followed in the way the MfD
>was closed.

It is strange that you see it this way.  As far as I can see, DRV is
one of the few places where there is a serious attempt at a clue-based
approach.  Whatever the notional rules, people look at both content
and process, and take a view on what is likely to be best for the
project.  

Obviously it's not consistent, but I have seen patient explanations to
purveyors of egregious vanity and other examples of good practice.

I have also seen that the process is denounced by those who fail to
get their favoured articles kept - the ED mob, for example.  That is
not DRV's fault, it's the fault of people who have a stake in the
content of an article becoming excessively impassioned.  

In the case of the esoteric programming languages, overall, most of
them were below the level of trivial and in many cases looked like
vanity for the creators.  Several people at DRV asked that those which
were considered to have been wrongly deleted, be listed separately,
since the majority were clearly (to my mind) delete-worthy.  

But I do think that AfD is not a good mechanism for deciding on a
class of articles.  Maybe a block RfC to discuss the individual
articles, with an AfD nom at the end for those which by consensus in
that discussion should be deleted.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

_______________________________________________
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: Can anything be done about Deletion Review?

Stephen Bain
In reply to this post by Alphax (Wikipedia email)
On 9/10/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Akash Mehta wrote:
> >
> > Maybe a MfD?
>
> ... of DRV? Excellent idea.

Or simply delete it, a la Uncle Ed.

--
Stephen Bain
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
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: Can anything be done about Deletion Review?

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
In reply to this post by Guy Chapman aka JzG
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

> On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 20:23:11 -0400, "Carl Peterson"
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Speaking of process votes, one of the biggest problems I see with DRV is
>> that it becomes a second AFD. For example, if you look at the DRV for the
>> CVU you'll notice that most of the comments (including some of my own) had
>> more to do with the original delete/keep discussion that took place in the
>> MfD than it did with whether or not policy was followed in the way the MfD
>> was closed.
>
> It is strange that you see it this way.  As far as I can see, DRV is
> one of the few places where there is a serious attempt at a clue-based
> approach.  Whatever the notional rules, people look at both content
> and process, and take a view on what is likely to be best for the
> project.  
>
You have GOT to be joking. Process all the way, baby. Screw the content,
so long as all the "votes" were "counted" and the "process" was
"followed correctly", the result stands. Just about every time I've
looked at the scrapheap (which isn't many btw.), it's been a slather of:

"(whatever the AFD result was), valid AFD ~~~~"

<snip>
> In the case of the esoteric programming languages, overall, most of
> them were below the level of trivial and in many cases looked like
> vanity for the creators.  Several people at DRV asked that those which
> were considered to have been wrongly deleted, be listed separately,
> since the majority were clearly (to my mind) delete-worthy.  
>

For what it's worth, I tend to agree with the outcome.

> But I do think that AfD is not a good mechanism for deciding on a
> class of articles.  Maybe a block RfC to discuss the individual
> articles, with an AfD nom at the end for those which by consensus in
> that discussion should be deleted.
>

Until there's an "editorial board", nothing else will ever really work,
because any peanut in the gallery can shout out their opinion. Wikipedia
is an encyclopedia, not an experiment in mob rule.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

signature.asc (581 bytes) Download Attachment
123