Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Wilhelm Schnotz]

How you figure out which pages go in the non-google section is
somewhere in between only FA and everything. Figuring out that exact
point is up to debate :P

For example you can say any article with a "dispute" tag on it... But
saying that means that some of our religion articles may not be
googlable

The answer to your question though is in between the two extremes.

On 1/14/09, wjhon...@aol.com  wrote:
> < wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com writes:
>
> Indeed  but doesn't every non featured article fall under "not ready  for
> consumption" category?
> - White  Cat>>
>
> That's odd to me.  You think an article needs to be FA before we  should let
> people find it in a search?
> That seems to be a 10 percent rule, while I'm advocating a 90 percent  rule.
> That is that *most* articles are ready, only the few that already undergo
> AfD might (and I use "might" advisedly) not be so ready.
> This is a mole hill, not a mountain.
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
>
>
> **Inauguration '09: Get complete coverage from the nation's
> capital.(http://www.aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom0027)
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[WJhonson]

<>
 
That's odd to me.  You think an article needs to be FA before we  should let 
people find it in a search?
That seems to be a 10 percent rule, while I'm advocating a 90 percent  rule.
That is that *most* articles are ready, only the few that already undergo  
AfD might (and I use "might" advisedly) not be so ready.
This is a mole hill, not a mountain.
 
Will Johnson
 
 


**Inauguration '09: Get complete coverage from the nation's 
capital.(http://www.aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom0027)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[WJhonson]

<>
-
You may not know much about me.  I am at-times viciously anti-admin  :)
Power corrupts and admins can get corrupted as easily as the next petty  
bureaucrat
I would never, not ever, not one single time ever, advocate a new power for  
admins.
I would advocate removing 80% of the special admins powers which already  
exist.
 
Now that I've had my soapbox, no, I'm saying these articles can be read  
in-project, but not out-project.
 
Stubs are not necessarily not-ready-for-viewing.  They are just stubby  and 
we'd like to expand them.
This proposal only discusses those articles that would go up for AfD.
Not even the most outrageous editor tags every stub, so neither would  we.
Some might get tagged however.  Like I said it's two different  issues.
 
Will Johnson
 
 
 


**Inauguration '09: Get complete coverage from the nation's 
capital.(http://www.aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom0027)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

I shall mind it nevermore forevermore.

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Alvaro García  wrote:

> Nevermind.
>
>
> --
> Alvaro
>
> On 14-01-2009, at 11:30, "White Cat" 
> wrote:
>
> > I am kinda confused? What are you referring to?
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Alvaro García  w
> > rote:
> >
> >> Sorry but you asked that -maybe retorically-, no need to be rude.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Alvaro
> >>
> >> On 14-01-2009, at 10:34, "White Cat"
> >> 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Which does not connect with the content of my post...
> >>>
> >>> So what?
> >>> How Google determines what should rank higher is not the point of my
> >>> post.
> >>> If you read throughly, I have demonstrated how the paranoia towards
> >>> fiction
> >>> related topics is baseless and unwarranted.
> >>>
> >>>  - White Cat
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Alvaro García  >>> m> w
> >>> rote:
> >>>
>  Google search put first the sites with more clicks and higher
>  PageRank.
> 
> 
>  --
>  Alvaro
> 
>  ___
>  WikiEN-l mailing list
>  WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>  To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> 
> >>> ___
> >>> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> >> ___
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> > ___
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

I do not see the reason why some people are in a panic. We are nowhere near
a situation where we run out of topics.
If anything real world topics such as science, history and etc will keep
developing.

The problem we have today is that some peoples standards of inclusion is so
low that it is compromising our content amount in bulk. In other words,
there is a current substantial decrease in content amount as a result.

  - White Cat

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Wilhelm Schnotz wrote:

> Explain why :P
>
> Also as a secondary thought how many articles *can* we add? There is a
> limit where adding new articles is going to be harder and harder to do
> for the lack of worthy topics. The only way I can see a substantial
> increase in new articles is if we relax our standards of inclusion
> (not going to opine on if this is a good or a bad thing).
>
> For example we don't list every book ever created as its own article.
> The same thought seems to go to the rest of the encyclopedia. We don't
> have every person on this planet having a page. We don't have every
> company having a page etc.
>
> There is a large but finite number of articles we can write... Once
> those are started the work comes to improving the existing items,
> Sourcing, improving prose, etc. This is the work that seems to be not
> as popular... At least with newer folks. (I point to our huge
> maintainace backlogs for articles as proof of this)
>
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Alvaro García]

Nevermind.


--
Alvaro

On 14-01-2009, at 11:30, "White Cat"   
wrote:

> I am kinda confused? What are you referring to?
>
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Alvaro García  w 
> rote:
>
>> Sorry but you asked that -maybe retorically-, no need to be rude.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alvaro
>>
>> On 14-01-2009, at 10:34, "White Cat"  
>> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Which does not connect with the content of my post...
>>>
>>> So what?
>>> How Google determines what should rank higher is not the point of my
>>> post.
>>> If you read throughly, I have demonstrated how the paranoia towards
>>> fiction
>>> related topics is baseless and unwarranted.
>>>
>>>  - White Cat
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Alvaro García >> m> w
>>> rote:
>>>
 Google search put first the sites with more clicks and higher
 PageRank.


 --
 Alvaro

 ___
 WikiEN-l mailing list
 WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

>>> ___
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>> ___
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Alvaro García]

Stubs aren't bad. They may be about a topic which doesn't have many  
information.


--
Alvaro

On 14-01-2009, at 12:57, Ken Arromdee  wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>> I am sorry I still do not get it.
>> 1) Is your proposal going to completely hide "unfinished" articles  
>> from
>> the
>> public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?>>
>>
>> To hide those articles which are unfinished, or which the community  
>> has
>> decided are unfinished.  So the AfD process becomes simply the  
>> "Hide It
>> process" much less contentious.
>
> You didn't answer the question about who gets to see them.
>
> Given most possible answers to this question, it'll just end up  
> being the same
> as AFD.  After all, right now an admin can see a deleted article.
>
>> <<3) Isn't your proposal hiding all stubs as well as some other
>> articles?
>> After all no stub by very definition is ready for "public
>> consumption".>>
>>
>> No.  It has nothing to do with stubs or non-stubs.  Stubs are  
>> published
>> today, and they would be published tomorrow.  The only thing this  
>> does
>> is provide a way for AfD to turn into something with less conflict.
>
> Well, is it about hiding articles ready for public consumption, or  
> isn't it?
> If it is, stubs get hidden.  If it's not, you shouldn't say it is.
>
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

Indeed but doesn't every non featured article fall under "not ready for
consumption" category?
   - White Cat

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Wilhelm Schnotz wrote:

> I would assume such a system would just create a "non-published"
> namespace that articles would sit in... And software changes could be
> made to change red links that point to where the article should be in
> main space a different color and point them at the "non-published"
> space.
>
> In short readers, users etc could all see them, jush google would not
> index them. The benefit of the system as stated is users and readers
> would know by clicking on the non blue links that these articles are
> still "in the works".
>
> Such a system would work decently well if moving from one space to the
> other could be done by any registered user... Sorta like moves are
> done today.
>
> Please note that I am not advocating this, but I think tossing around
> alternate ideas can't hurt. This idea I think defines a decent answer
> to your question, feel free to change it around or attack it all you
> like, just be constructive about it.
>
> On 1/14/09, Ken Arromdee  wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> >> I am sorry I still do not get it.
> >> 1) Is your proposal going to completely hide "unfinished" articles from
> >> the
> >> public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?>>
> >>
> >> To hide those articles which are unfinished, or which the community has
> >> decided are unfinished.  So the AfD process becomes simply the "Hide It
> >> process" much less contentious.
> >
> > You didn't answer the question about who gets to see them.
> >
> > Given most possible answers to this question, it'll just end up being the
> > same
> > as AFD.  After all, right now an admin can see a deleted article.
> >
> >> <<3) Isn't your proposal hiding all stubs as well as some other
> >> articles?
> >> After all no stub by very definition is ready for "public
> >> consumption".>>
> >>
> >> No.  It has nothing to do with stubs or non-stubs.  Stubs are published
> >> today, and they would be published tomorrow.  The only thing this does
> >> is provide a way for AfD to turn into something with less conflict.
> >
> > Well, is it about hiding articles ready for public consumption, or isn't
> it?
> > If it is, stubs get hidden.  If it's not, you shouldn't say it is.
> >
> >
> > ___
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Wilhelm Schnotz]

Explain why :P

Also as a secondary thought how many articles *can* we add? There is a
limit where adding new articles is going to be harder and harder to do
for the lack of worthy topics. The only way I can see a substantial
increase in new articles is if we relax our standards of inclusion
(not going to opine on if this is a good or a bad thing).

For example we don't list every book ever created as its own article.
The same thought seems to go to the rest of the encyclopedia. We don't
have every person on this planet having a page. We don't have every
company having a page etc.

There is a large but finite number of articles we can write... Once
those are started the work comes to improving the existing items,
Sourcing, improving prose, etc. This is the work that seems to be not
as popular... At least with newer folks. (I point to our huge
maintainace backlogs for articles as proof of this)

On 1/14/09, The Cunctator  wrote:
> Content and participation in Wikipedia is already in decline. This would
> hasten the process.
>
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Wilhelm Schnotz
> wrote:
>
>> I would assume such a system would just create a "non-published"
>> namespace that articles would sit in... And software changes could be
>> made to change red links that point to where the article should be in
>> main space a different color and point them at the "non-published"
>> space.
>>
>> In short readers, users etc could all see them, jush google would not
>> index them. The benefit of the system as stated is users and readers
>> would know by clicking on the non blue links that these articles are
>> still "in the works".
>>
>> Such a system would work decently well if moving from one space to the
>> other could be done by any registered user... Sorta like moves are
>> done today.
>>
>> Please note that I am not advocating this, but I think tossing around
>> alternate ideas can't hurt. This idea I think defines a decent answer
>> to your question, feel free to change it around or attack it all you
>> like, just be constructive about it.
>>
>> On 1/14/09, Ken Arromdee  wrote:
>> > On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> I am sorry I still do not get it.
>> >> 1) Is your proposal going to completely hide "unfinished" articles from
>> >> the
>> >> public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?>>
>> >>
>> >> To hide those articles which are unfinished, or which the community has
>> >> decided are unfinished.  So the AfD process becomes simply the "Hide It
>> >> process" much less contentious.
>> >
>> > You didn't answer the question about who gets to see them.
>> >
>> > Given most possible answers to this question, it'll just end up being
>> > the
>> > same
>> > as AFD.  After all, right now an admin can see a deleted article.
>> >
>> >> <<3) Isn't your proposal hiding all stubs as well as some other
>> >> articles?
>> >> After all no stub by very definition is ready for "public
>> >> consumption".>>
>> >>
>> >> No.  It has nothing to do with stubs or non-stubs.  Stubs are published
>> >> today, and they would be published tomorrow.  The only thing this does
>> >> is provide a way for AfD to turn into something with less conflict.
>> >
>> > Well, is it about hiding articles ready for public consumption, or isn't
>> it?
>> > If it is, stubs get hidden.  If it's not, you shouldn't say it is.
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > WikiEN-l mailing list
>> > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>> >
>>
>> ___
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[The Cunctator]

Content and participation in Wikipedia is already in decline. This would
hasten the process.

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Wilhelm Schnotz wrote:

> I would assume such a system would just create a "non-published"
> namespace that articles would sit in... And software changes could be
> made to change red links that point to where the article should be in
> main space a different color and point them at the "non-published"
> space.
>
> In short readers, users etc could all see them, jush google would not
> index them. The benefit of the system as stated is users and readers
> would know by clicking on the non blue links that these articles are
> still "in the works".
>
> Such a system would work decently well if moving from one space to the
> other could be done by any registered user... Sorta like moves are
> done today.
>
> Please note that I am not advocating this, but I think tossing around
> alternate ideas can't hurt. This idea I think defines a decent answer
> to your question, feel free to change it around or attack it all you
> like, just be constructive about it.
>
> On 1/14/09, Ken Arromdee  wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> >> I am sorry I still do not get it.
> >> 1) Is your proposal going to completely hide "unfinished" articles from
> >> the
> >> public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?>>
> >>
> >> To hide those articles which are unfinished, or which the community has
> >> decided are unfinished.  So the AfD process becomes simply the "Hide It
> >> process" much less contentious.
> >
> > You didn't answer the question about who gets to see them.
> >
> > Given most possible answers to this question, it'll just end up being the
> > same
> > as AFD.  After all, right now an admin can see a deleted article.
> >
> >> <<3) Isn't your proposal hiding all stubs as well as some other
> >> articles?
> >> After all no stub by very definition is ready for "public
> >> consumption".>>
> >>
> >> No.  It has nothing to do with stubs or non-stubs.  Stubs are published
> >> today, and they would be published tomorrow.  The only thing this does
> >> is provide a way for AfD to turn into something with less conflict.
> >
> > Well, is it about hiding articles ready for public consumption, or isn't
> it?
> > If it is, stubs get hidden.  If it's not, you shouldn't say it is.
> >
> >
> > ___
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Wilhelm Schnotz]

I would assume such a system would just create a "non-published"
namespace that articles would sit in... And software changes could be
made to change red links that point to where the article should be in
main space a different color and point them at the "non-published"
space.

In short readers, users etc could all see them, jush google would not
index them. The benefit of the system as stated is users and readers
would know by clicking on the non blue links that these articles are
still "in the works".

Such a system would work decently well if moving from one space to the
other could be done by any registered user... Sorta like moves are
done today.

Please note that I am not advocating this, but I think tossing around
alternate ideas can't hurt. This idea I think defines a decent answer
to your question, feel free to change it around or attack it all you
like, just be constructive about it.

On 1/14/09, Ken Arromdee  wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>> I am sorry I still do not get it.
>> 1) Is your proposal going to completely hide "unfinished" articles from
>> the
>> public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?>>
>>
>> To hide those articles which are unfinished, or which the community has
>> decided are unfinished.  So the AfD process becomes simply the "Hide It
>> process" much less contentious.
>
> You didn't answer the question about who gets to see them.
>
> Given most possible answers to this question, it'll just end up being the
> same
> as AFD.  After all, right now an admin can see a deleted article.
>
>> <<3) Isn't your proposal hiding all stubs as well as some other
>> articles?
>> After all no stub by very definition is ready for "public
>> consumption".>>
>>
>> No.  It has nothing to do with stubs or non-stubs.  Stubs are published
>> today, and they would be published tomorrow.  The only thing this does
>> is provide a way for AfD to turn into something with less conflict.
>
> Well, is it about hiding articles ready for public consumption, or isn't it?
> If it is, stubs get hidden.  If it's not, you shouldn't say it is.
>
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Ken Arromdee]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> I am sorry I still do not get it.
> 1) Is your proposal going to completely hide "unfinished" articles from 
> the
> public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?>>
> 
> To hide those articles which are unfinished, or which the community has 
> decided are unfinished.  So the AfD process becomes simply the "Hide It 
> process" much less contentious.

You didn't answer the question about who gets to see them.

Given most possible answers to this question, it'll just end up being the same
as AFD.  After all, right now an admin can see a deleted article.

> <<3) Isn't your proposal hiding all stubs as well as some other 
> articles?
> After all no stub by very definition is ready for "public 
> consumption".>>
> 
> No.  It has nothing to do with stubs or non-stubs.  Stubs are published 
> today, and they would be published tomorrow.  The only thing this does 
> is provide a way for AfD to turn into something with less conflict.

Well, is it about hiding articles ready for public consumption, or isn't it?
If it is, stubs get hidden.  If it's not, you shouldn't say it is.


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

I am kinda confused? What are you referring to?

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Alvaro García  wrote:

> Sorry but you asked that -maybe retorically-, no need to be rude.
>
>
> --
> Alvaro
>
> On 14-01-2009, at 10:34, "White Cat" 
> wrote:
>
> > Which does not connect with the content of my post...
> >
> > So what?
> > How Google determines what should rank higher is not the point of my
> > post.
> > If you read throughly, I have demonstrated how the paranoia towards
> > fiction
> > related topics is baseless and unwarranted.
> >
> >   - White Cat
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Alvaro García  w
> > rote:
> >
> >> Google search put first the sites with more clicks and higher
> >> PageRank.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Alvaro
> >>
> >> ___
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> > ___
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Alvaro García]

Or Nüpedia. That would be great.
Á la Nü Jazz, Nü Metal, etc.


--
Alvaro

On 14-01-2009, at 11:05, "The Cunctator"  wrote:

> We should rename this project "Newpedia" or something.
>
> Hmm... maybe a little jazzier
>
> How about "Nupedia"?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:40 AM,  wrote:
>
>> <
>> I am sorry I still do not get it.
>> 1) Is your proposal going to completely hide "unfinished" articles  
>> from
>> the
>> public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?>>
>>
>> To hide those articles which are unfinished, or which the community  
>> has
>> decided are unfinished.  So the AfD process becomes simply the  
>> "Hide It
>> process" much less contentious.
>>
>> <<2) How would you decide which article is ready for public  
>> consumption
>> or not? A process like "requests for publishing"?>>
>>
>> Everything gets published as normal, until someone flags it and then
>> you would have a process just like AfD, except the end result would
>> simply be to hide it, not delete it.
>>
>> <<3) Isn't your proposal hiding all stubs as well as some other
>> articles?
>> After all no stub by very definition is ready for "public
>> consumption".>>
>>
>> No.  It has nothing to do with stubs or non-stubs.  Stubs are  
>> published
>> today, and they would be published tomorrow.  The only thing this  
>> does
>> is provide a way for AfD to turn into something with less conflict.
>>
>> <<4) I am not "ready to accept" anything I am forced to accept. Your
>> tone
>> implies I have no other choice to either accept your proposal or mass
>> deletions. Mass deletion itself has no consensus behind it and is
>> disruptive.>>
>>
>> You always have a choice.  When you are going 60 mph toward a lake  
>> and
>> need to turn either left or right, you have to decide fairly  
>> quickly to
>> avoid a more perilous result.
>>
>>
>> <<5) You seem to have a workable idea but perhaps need to organize
>> thoughts a bit.>>
>>
>> Thank you.  A sentiment reflected by countless others before you.
>>
>> Will Johnson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Alvaro García]

Sorry but you asked that -maybe retorically-, no need to be rude.


--
Alvaro

On 14-01-2009, at 10:34, "White Cat"   
wrote:

> Which does not connect with the content of my post...
>
> So what?
> How Google determines what should rank higher is not the point of my  
> post.
> If you read throughly, I have demonstrated how the paranoia towards  
> fiction
> related topics is baseless and unwarranted.
>
>   - White Cat
>
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Alvaro García  w 
> rote:
>
>> Google search put first the sites with more clicks and higher  
>> PageRank.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alvaro
>>
>> ___
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[The Cunctator]

We should rename this project "Newpedia" or something.

Hmm... maybe a little jazzier

How about "Nupedia"?



On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:40 AM,  wrote:

> <
> I am sorry I still do not get it.
> 1) Is your proposal going to completely hide "unfinished" articles from
> the
> public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?>>
>
> To hide those articles which are unfinished, or which the community has
> decided are unfinished.  So the AfD process becomes simply the "Hide It
> process" much less contentious.
>
> <<2) How would you decide which article is ready for public consumption
> or not? A process like "requests for publishing"?>>
>
> Everything gets published as normal, until someone flags it and then
> you would have a process just like AfD, except the end result would
> simply be to hide it, not delete it.
>
> <<3) Isn't your proposal hiding all stubs as well as some other
> articles?
> After all no stub by very definition is ready for "public
> consumption".>>
>
> No.  It has nothing to do with stubs or non-stubs.  Stubs are published
> today, and they would be published tomorrow.  The only thing this does
> is provide a way for AfD to turn into something with less conflict.
>
> <<4) I am not "ready to accept" anything I am forced to accept. Your
> tone
> implies I have no other choice to either accept your proposal or mass
> deletions. Mass deletion itself has no consensus behind it and is
> disruptive.>>
>
> You always have a choice.  When you are going 60 mph toward a lake and
> need to turn either left or right, you have to decide fairly quickly to
> avoid a more perilous result.
>
>
> <<5) You seem to have a workable idea but perhaps need to organize
> thoughts a bit.>>
>
> Thank you.  A sentiment reflected by countless others before you.
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[The Cunctator]

Ah well, Wikipedia was fun while it lasted.

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:34 AM, White Cat
wrote:

> Which does not connect with the content of my post...
>
> So what?
>  How Google determines what should rank higher is not the point of my post.
> If you read throughly, I have demonstrated how the paranoia towards fiction
> related topics is baseless and unwarranted.
>
>   - White Cat
>
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Alvaro García  wrote:
>
> > Google search put first the sites with more clicks and higher PageRank.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Alvaro
> >
> > ___
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

Which does not connect with the content of my post...

So what?
 How Google determines what should rank higher is not the point of my post.
If you read throughly, I have demonstrated how the paranoia towards fiction
related topics is baseless and unwarranted.

   - White Cat

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Alvaro García  wrote:

> Google search put first the sites with more clicks and higher PageRank.
>
>
> --
> Alvaro
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Alvaro García]

Google search put first the sites with more clicks and higher PageRank.


--
Alvaro

On 13-01-2009, at 5:53, "White Cat"   
wrote:

> One side of the issue is aggressively mass removing articles without  
> backing
> such an act with consensus of any kind. When that happens the other  
> side
> does not even think of compromising. The opposing side pushes back  
> with
> equal aggression. This kind of aggressive conflict between any two  
> sides
> disrupts the entire site. This is what's happening. That is the  
> outstanding
> problem at this point. It isn't the only outstanding problem but is  
> the
> first one that needs to be addressed for us to work on a consensus  
> everyone
> can agree on. Do we all agree thus far? Because neither one of you  
> have said
> so. I apologize if I missed any remarks establishing this.
>
> As for your other point... Just how do you think Google ranks their  
> search
> results? Google's search results establish the "prime time" articles.
>
> Consider "Beowulf"
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Beowulf+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Google+Search
>
> As you can see the historic article (Old English heroic epic poem)  
> is #1.
> 2007 movie comes as #2. The computer clusters of NASA comes #3.
>
> Mind that #1 and #2 are fiction related topics and #3 is a real  
> world topic.
> In this case the fiction related work is more popular/notable than  
> the real
> world topic.
>
> Consider "Enterprise"
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Enterprise+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search
>
> #1 and #3 is a fiction related.
>
> The real world ships (OV-101 & CVN-65) called Enterprise come before  
> the
> fictional ship (NCC-1701). CV-6 comes as the 20th hit.
>
> Consider "Voyager"
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Voyager+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search
>
> #1 is the fictional series and other 18 hits are not even fiction
> related. The fictional ship USS voyager comes up in the next page at  
> #21.
>
> Consider "Zero"
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Zero+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search
>
> #1 is 0 (number) in mathematics - a real world topic to say the  
> least. #2
> is A6M Zero, the Japanese fighter aircraft in WW2. #3 is the fictional
> character. #4 is a real world topic (chemistry). And the remaining  
> topics
> are either disambiguation or real world related articles.
>
> Of course when I do a search on "Naruto"
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search
>
> I get 19 hits on fiction related topics. Even then the 20th is a  
> real world
> topic!
>
> So where exactly is the Google ranking inadequate or unfair? Mind  
> that I
> made no effort to "hide" fiction related topics in the search urls I  
> posted
> so far.
>
> Had I searched for "Naruto -anime"
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+-anime+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search
>
> I get 18 real world topics. With the use of a few more words.
>
> Consider "Naruto -anime -manga -episodes -user -Wikipedia:featured"
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+-anime+-manga+-episodes+-user+-
>  
> "Wikipedia:featured"+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search  
> >
>
> I can effectively remove fiction related hits on my search results.  
> Or... I
> could use smarter search words to get what I am looking for.
>
> Consider: "Naruto University"
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+University+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search
>
> All it takes is the use of one extra word to eliminate nearly all  
> fiction
> related topics. Naruto is among our top 20 most visited articles  
> each month.
> Even so that doesn't get in the way if you are smart about it.
>
> So please tell me what exactly is the problem with fiction related  
> articles
> as a whole?
>
> - White Cat
>
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:10 AM,  wrote:
>
>> You are not understanding White Cat what the person means by ranking.
>>
>> That there would be a "prime time" Wikipedia, which any reader can  
>> find,
>> and
>> then a "sub-surface" Wikipedia for all the articles not deemed  
>> ready to go
>> to prime time.
>>
>> These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so  
>> reader
>> wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are "acceptable" in the
>> mainstream,
>> but they would be present for people already in-world to read and  
>> edit.
>>
>> It seems like a simple way to satisfy both sides of the issue here.
>>
>> Will Johnson
>>
>>
>>
>> **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in  
>> just 2 easy
>> steps!
>> (
>> http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De
>> cemailfooterNO62

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

Mothly

   1. Wiki  (+ 268 redirect hits per day)
   2. The Beatles  (+ 60,737 redirect hits per day)
   3. YouTube  (+ 6,163 redirect hits per day)
   4. Christmas  (+ 384 redirect hits per day)
   5. Ponzi scheme
   6. Wikipedia  (+ 713 redirect hits per day)
   7. Favicon.ico
   8. Deaths in 2008  (+ 4,172 redirect hits per day)
   9. Hanukkah
   10. Twilight (2008 film)  (+ 1,511 redirect hits per day)
   11. United States  (+ 10,085 redirect hits per day)
   12. Facebook  (+ 399 redirect hits per day)
   13. Virgin Killer
   14. The Dark Knight (film)  (+ 1,541 redirect hits per day)
   15. Twilight (novel)  (+ 3,239 redirect hits per day)
   16. Heroes (TV series)  (+ 6,659 redirect hits per day)
   17. Robert Pattinson  (+ 10 redirect hits per day)
   18. Barack Obama  (+ 56,551 redirect hits per day)
   19. Naruto  (+ 1,636 redirect hits per day)
   20. Sex  (+ 859 redirect hits per day)
   21. Rod Blagojevich
   22. Lil Wayne  (+ 6,644 redirect hits per day)
   23. Edward Cullen (Twilight)  (+ 2,010 redirect hits per day)
   24. The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008 film)
   25. Seven Pounds

A less detailed analysis... Mind that for some odd reason on December 2008
people shown a lot of interest in topics like Ponzi scheme, Christmas,
Virgin Killer, Twilight (2008 film), Twilight (novel), Robert Pattinson.

The reason for that is...

The last three items (Twilight (2008 film), Twilight (novel), Robert
Pattinson): These are related to the Twilight saga (whatever it is - I
really do not care) which released the movie or something...

Virgin Killer: had a controversy surrounding it over the controversial album
cover. Read about it if you like at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer#Internet_censorship

Christmas: 25 Dec... Seems like people needed to learn about it from
Wikipedia...

Ponzi scheme: had a controversy on 11 Dec concerning former chairman of the
NASDAQ Stock Market Bernard Madoff. Fun part of it is that more people cared
about the meaning of Ponzi scheme than Bernard Madoff himself. If you care
to read more about it, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme#Bernard_Madoff

At a glance you can see that there is an overflow of fiction related topics.
This is primarily due to releases in December. If you put it in the context
of a year-long statistics most of those will not even show as a blip. So I
really do not see a threat in fiction related articles.

  - White Cat

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

Indeed. Our (Wikipedias) most visited articles is "littered" with fiction
related topics. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Popular_pages

for a list of "most visited" articles. There are links to other tools which
provide more detailed statistics.

For your convenience:

http://wikistics.falsikon.de/2008/wikipedia/en/

Thats the yearly visits. For the sake of our sanity we will ignore
statistics on daily or even monthly visits.

Wikipedias top 25 most visited article with real content (excluding special
pages and the main page as well ass any non-main namespace page ) in 2008
is:

   1. Wiki - Software
   2. YouTube - Website
   3. Barack Obama - Politics
   4. Sarah Palin - Politics
   5. Facebook - Website
   6. The Dark Knight (film) - Pop Culture
   7. Wikipedia - Website (US!)
   8. Sex - Science (o_O)
   9. Deaths in 2008 - General content
   10. United States - Science (Geography, socialy and etc)
   11. MySpace - Website
   12. John McCain - Politics
   13. Beatles - Pop Culture - Music
   14. 2008 Summer Olympics - Olympics
   15. Large Hadron Collider - Science
   16. Hotmail - Website
   17. Naruto - Pop Cultue - Anime
   18. Heroes (TV series) - Pop Culture - Sci fi
   19. Google - Website
   20. Joe Biden - Politics
   21. Lil Wayne - Pop Culture - Music
   22. Michael Phelps - Olympics
   23. Batman - Pop Culture - Sci fi (or whatever)
   24. United States presidential election, 2008 - Politics
   25. Miley Cyrus - Pop Culture - Music


Now lets analyze all this.

First of all please recall that 2008 had two significant events.

   - The Election in the United States
   - The Summer Olympics in China

Politics: 5
Olympics: 2
Websites: 6
Pop Culture: 7
Other: 5

If we count Other+Olympics+Websites+Politics as real world... Thats 18 real
world and 7 pop culture.

I do not see the threat of pop culture there...

   - White Cat

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Carcharoth wrote:

>
>
> Good point. I haven't seen this argument raised prominently before,
> that fiction articles *don't* swamp our real-world coverage. It would
> be worth trying to get more rigorous results from a wider survey like
> this, and finding someone willing to help with some moderate form of
> statistical analysis. The number of page views is also something that
> should have more prominence in the debate, in my opinion.
>
> Carcharoth
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

I think not. We already have plenty of that. Tens of thousands of articles
were deleted via redirectification, afds, prods and speedy deletions as well
as other methods.
Just because some people are being extremely aggressive does not mean people
like me will settle with something less aggressive but equally disruptive.

There is a lack of consensus to mass delete any article category. So can you
please stop pretending as if there is such a consensus?

  - White Cat


On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Alvaro García  wrote:

> Oh yes, you're right.
>
> Speedy deletion would be required on some case.
>
>
> --
> Alvaro
>
> On 13-01-2009, at 14:18, "Martijn Hoekstra"
>  wrote:
>
> > Yeah, but that won't work. It needs at least an exception for speedy
> > deletion. Slowly I'm starting to notice im heading more in the
> > direction of hardcore inclusionists, on grounds off [[WP:HARMLESS]]
> > and [[WP:USEFULL]], and stop seeing the use of notability guidelines.
> > That said, even if only 1 in 5 AfD deletions represent true consensus,
> > then that would still amount to about 6 discussions for which we
> > require full community consensus a day, and I just think and hope our
> > community would like to have some time left to write articles instead
> > of making decissions on deleting articles.
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Alvaro García  w
> > rote:
> >> It would be great that, instead of deleting an article, the usual
> >> deleters would be given a 'flag as source-less/needs improvement'
> >> where it would go to a Wikipedia section of poor articles, where
> >> people who know would improve them.
> >> And, no article, in whatever section, could be deleted unless there's
> >> a general consensus.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Alvaro
> >>
> >> On 13-01-2009, at 5:22, Noah Salzman  wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:10 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> >>>
>  These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so
>  reader
>  wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are "acceptable" in
>  the
>  mainstream,
>  but they would be present for people already in-world to read and
>  edit.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Makes sense to me. If the "articles for deletion" process is usurped
> >>> by the "articles for purgatory" process then it transforms the
> >>> debate
> >>> entirely. If you keep losing at chess than change the game to
> >>> checkers, rather than continuing to complain about losing at chess.
> >>>
> >>> Deletion could remain a standard process but with much clearer and
> >>> stricter guidelines. Perhaps, it could be changed to "innocent until
> >>> proven guilty" as opposed to the deletion process now where the
> >>> defendant has to do a ton of busy work to save a "guilt-assumed"
> >>> article.
> >>>
> >>> As someone somewhat removed from the politics of the project, my
> >>> main
> >>> question is what does the step-by-step process look like for making
> >>> this change happen? I imagine there is more than one path: grass
> >>> roots
> >>> consensus building vs lobbying The Powers That Be?
> >>>
> >>> My apologies if that is an amusingly naive way of putting it.
> >>>
> >>> --Noah--
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> >
> > ___
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Carcharoth]

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 8:53 AM, White Cat
 wrote:



> All it takes is the use of one extra word to eliminate nearly all fiction
> related topics. Naruto is among our top 20 most visited articles each month.
> Even so that doesn't get in the way if you are smart about it.
>
> So please tell me what exactly is the problem with fiction related articles
> as a whole?

Good point. I haven't seen this argument raised prominently before,
that fiction articles *don't* swamp our real-world coverage. It would
be worth trying to get more rigorous results from a wider survey like
this, and finding someone willing to help with some moderate form of
statistical analysis. The number of page views is also something that
should have more prominence in the debate, in my opinion.

Carcharoth

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:40 PM,  wrote:

> <
> <<4) I am not "ready to accept" anything I am forced to accept. Your
> tone
> implies I have no other choice to either accept your proposal or mass
> deletions. Mass deletion itself has no consensus behind it and is
> disruptive.>>
>
> You always have a choice.  When you are going 60 mph toward a lake and
> need to turn either left or right, you have to decide fairly quickly to
> avoid a more perilous result.
>
>
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
I don't drive.

  - White Cat
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[wjhonson]

<
I am sorry I still do not get it.
1) Is your proposal going to completely hide "unfinished" articles from 
the
public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?>>

To hide those articles which are unfinished, or which the community has 
decided are unfinished.  So the AfD process becomes simply the "Hide It 
process" much less contentious.

<<2) How would you decide which article is ready for public consumption 
or not? A process like "requests for publishing"?>>

Everything gets published as normal, until someone flags it and then 
you would have a process just like AfD, except the end result would 
simply be to hide it, not delete it.

<<3) Isn't your proposal hiding all stubs as well as some other 
articles?
After all no stub by very definition is ready for "public 
consumption".>>

No.  It has nothing to do with stubs or non-stubs.  Stubs are published 
today, and they would be published tomorrow.  The only thing this does 
is provide a way for AfD to turn into something with less conflict.

<<4) I am not "ready to accept" anything I am forced to accept. Your 
tone
implies I have no other choice to either accept your proposal or mass
deletions. Mass deletion itself has no consensus behind it and is
disruptive.>>

You always have a choice.  When you are going 60 mph toward a lake and 
need to turn either left or right, you have to decide fairly quickly to 
avoid a more perilous result.


<<5) You seem to have a workable idea but perhaps need to organize 
thoughts a bit.>>

Thank you.  A sentiment reflected by countless others before you.

Will Johnson





___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

AFD itself is quite broken. Decisions made at AFD may
not necessarily represent the best interest of the site. The use of DRV had
skyrocketed over the passing years. Originally there was no need for a DRV.
  - White Cat

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:28 AM, David Gerard  wrote:

> 2009/1/14 Carcharoth :
>
> > "cleanup" is not an AfD result I've ever seen. It has been a
> > long-standing axiom as far as I can remember that AfD is not cleanup.
> > What *can* happen is someone closes as keep or no consensus, and then
> > *adds* their opinion (or that of others) that cleanup is needed. But
> > that is not a close of "cleanup".
>
>
> This does not square with practice, where people will aggressively
> defend whatever the AFD comes out as. "But the AFD consensus was to
> GUT THAT LIST!"
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

I am sorry I still do not get it.
1) Is your proposal going to completely hide "unfinished" articles from the
public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?

2) How would you decide which article is ready for public consumption or
not? A process like "requests for publishing"?

3) Isn't your proposal hiding all stubs as well as some other articles?
After all no stub by very definition is ready for "public consumption".

4) I am not "ready to accept" anything I am forced to accept. Your tone
implies I have no other choice to either accept your proposal or mass
deletions. Mass deletion itself has no consensus behind it and is
disruptive.

5) You seem to have a workable idea but perhaps need to organize thoughts a
bit.

  - White Cat

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:47 AM,  wrote:

>
> In a message dated 1/14/2009 12:38:27 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com writes:
>
> What  would that serve? I do not understand that!
> Please help me understand what  non-indexing stub articles will serve?
> Wouldn't that hamper the entire  point of stubs. We advertise via stub
> templates to ask people to expand  articles for a reason.>>
>
>
> 
> "No Indexing" is not related to "stub" or "not stub".
> It's related to "the community has decided this article isn't ready for
> public consumption"
>
> The article could be a thousand words long and still not be ready.
> This proposal is an alternative to mass deletions, and I would think you'd
> be ready to accept any alternative to that.
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
> **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
> steps!
> (
> http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De
> cemailfooterNO62
> )
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[WJhonson]

 
In a message dated 1/14/2009 12:38:27 AM Pacific Standard Time,  
wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com writes:

What  would that serve? I do not understand that!
Please help me understand what  non-indexing stub articles will serve?
Wouldn't that hamper the entire  point of stubs. We advertise via stub
templates to ask people to expand  articles for a reason.>>



"No Indexing" is not related to "stub" or "not stub".
It's related to "the community has decided this article isn't ready for  
public consumption"
 
The article could be a thousand words long and still not be ready.
This proposal is an alternative to mass deletions, and I would think you'd  
be ready to accept any alternative to that.
 
Will Johnson
 
 
**A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De
cemailfooterNO62)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

What would that serve? I do not understand that!
Please help me understand what non-indexing stub articles will serve?
Wouldn't that hamper the entire point of stubs. We advertise via stub
templates to ask people to expand articles for a reason.

Also what is the problem here in your words. Just to make sure we do not
have a disagreement.

  - White Cat

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:28 AM,  wrote:

>
> In a message dated 1/14/2009 12:24:19 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com writes:
>
> As for  your other point... Just how do you think Google ranks their
>  search
> results? Google's search results establish the "prime time"  articles.>>
>
>
> --
> This position however is not a solution.
> The other position proposed is a solution.
>
> Anybody, with the right search terms "Little brown bear that sells honey on
> late night television..."
> can find almost anything with a *top page* hit.
>
> The proposal is to noindex those sub-prime pages completely.
> Completely unindexed, no index whatsoever, not on the 999th page, not
> anywhere.
> Hope that's more clear.
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
>
> **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
> steps!
> (
> http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De
> cemailfooterNO62
> )
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[WJhonson]

 
In a message dated 1/14/2009 12:24:19 AM Pacific Standard Time,  
wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com writes:

As for  your other point... Just how do you think Google ranks their  search
results? Google's search results establish the "prime time"  articles.>>


--
This position however is not a solution.
The other position proposed is a solution.
 
Anybody, with the right search terms "Little brown bear that sells honey on  
late night television..."
can find almost anything with a *top page* hit.
 
The proposal is to noindex those sub-prime pages completely.
Completely unindexed, no index whatsoever, not on the 999th page, not  
anywhere.
Hope that's more clear.
 
Will Johnson
 
 
 
**A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De
cemailfooterNO62)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[David Gerard]

2009/1/14 Carcharoth :

> "cleanup" is not an AfD result I've ever seen. It has been a
> long-standing axiom as far as I can remember that AfD is not cleanup.
> What *can* happen is someone closes as keep or no consensus, and then
> *adds* their opinion (or that of others) that cleanup is needed. But
> that is not a close of "cleanup".


This does not square with practice, where people will aggressively
defend whatever the AFD comes out as. "But the AFD consensus was to
GUT THAT LIST!"


- d.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

One side of the issue is aggressively mass removing articles without backing
such an act with consensus of any kind. When that happens the other side
does not even think of compromising. The opposing side pushes back with
equal aggression. This kind of aggressive conflict between any two sides
disrupts the entire site. This is what's happening. That is the outstanding
problem at this point. It isn't the only outstanding problem but is the
first one that needs to be addressed for us to work on a consensus everyone
can agree on. Do we all agree thus far? Because neither one of you have said
so. I apologize if I missed any remarks establishing this.

As for your other point... Just how do you think Google ranks their search
results? Google's search results establish the "prime time" articles.

Consider "Beowulf"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Beowulf+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Google+Search

As you can see the historic article (Old English heroic epic poem) is #1.
2007 movie comes as #2. The computer clusters of NASA comes #3.

Mind that #1 and #2 are fiction related topics and #3 is a real world topic.
In this case the fiction related work is more popular/notable than the real
world topic.

Consider "Enterprise"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Enterprise+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search

#1 and #3 is a fiction related.

The real world ships (OV-101 & CVN-65) called Enterprise come before the
fictional ship (NCC-1701). CV-6 comes as the 20th hit.

Consider "Voyager"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Voyager+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search

#1 is the fictional series and other 18 hits are not even fiction
related. The fictional ship USS voyager comes up in the next page at #21.

Consider "Zero"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Zero+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search

#1 is 0 (number) in mathematics - a real world topic to say the least. #2
is A6M Zero, the Japanese fighter aircraft in WW2. #3 is the fictional
character. #4 is a real world topic (chemistry). And the remaining topics
are either disambiguation or real world related articles.

Of course when I do a search on "Naruto"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search

I get 19 hits on fiction related topics. Even then the 20th is a real world
topic!

So where exactly is the Google ranking inadequate or unfair? Mind that I
made no effort to "hide" fiction related topics in the search urls I posted
so far.

Had I searched for "Naruto -anime"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+-anime+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search

I get 18 real world topics. With the use of a few more words.

Consider "Naruto -anime -manga -episodes -user -Wikipedia:featured"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+-anime+-manga+-episodes+-user+-"Wikipedia:featured"+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search

I can effectively remove fiction related hits on my search results. Or... I
could use smarter search words to get what I am looking for.

Consider: "Naruto University"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+University+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search

All it takes is the use of one extra word to eliminate nearly all fiction
related topics. Naruto is among our top 20 most visited articles each month.
Even so that doesn't get in the way if you are smart about it.

So please tell me what exactly is the problem with fiction related articles
as a whole?

- White Cat

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:10 AM,  wrote:

> You are not understanding White Cat what the person means by ranking.
>
> That there would be a "prime time" Wikipedia, which any reader can find,
>  and
> then a "sub-surface" Wikipedia for all the articles not deemed ready to go
> to prime time.
>
> These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so reader
> wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are "acceptable" in the
> mainstream,
> but they would be present for people already in-world to read and edit.
>
> It seems like a simple way to satisfy both sides of the issue here.
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
>
> **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
> steps!
> (
> http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De
> cemailfooterNO62
> )
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wi

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Carcharoth]

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Wilhelm Schnotz  wrote:
> On 1/13/09, White Cat  wrote:
>> AFDs cannot conclude as a "merge". AFDs are meant to be a binary decision.
>> Something will either end up getting deleted or not. AFDs shouldn't go any
>> further.
>
> But they do and theyn have for quite some time. Other results from an
> AFD are cleanup, redirect, no consensus (default keep), keep, delete,
> I think there are a few others. It *is* widely accepted practice and
> has been for as long as I have been here.



"cleanup" is not an AfD result I've ever seen. It has been a
long-standing axiom as far as I can remember that AfD is not cleanup.
What *can* happen is someone closes as keep or no consensus, and then
*adds* their opinion (or that of others) that cleanup is needed. But
that is not a close of "cleanup".

Carcharoth

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Wilhelm Schnotz]

But they do and theyn have for quite some time. Other results from an
AFD are cleanup, redirect, no consensus (default keep), keep, delete,
I think there are a few others. It *is* widely accepted practice and
has been for as long as I have been here.

On 1/13/09, White Cat  wrote:
> AFDs cannot conclude as a "merge". AFDs are meant to be a binary decision.
> Something will either end up getting deleted or not. AFDs shouldn't go any
> further.
>  - White Cat
>
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Ken Arromdee  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Noah Salzman wrote:
>> > Makes sense to me. If the "articles for deletion" process is usurped
>> > by the "articles for purgatory" process then it transforms the debate
>> > entirely. If you keep losing at chess than change the game to
>> > checkers, rather than continuing to complain about losing at chess.
>>
>> It's already happened, with articles for deletion replaced by "merging" on
>> the
>> grounds that merging is not deletion.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

AFDs cannot conclude as a "merge". AFDs are meant to be a binary decision.
Something will either end up getting deleted or not. AFDs shouldn't go any
further.
 - White Cat

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Ken Arromdee  wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Noah Salzman wrote:
> > Makes sense to me. If the "articles for deletion" process is usurped
> > by the "articles for purgatory" process then it transforms the debate
> > entirely. If you keep losing at chess than change the game to
> > checkers, rather than continuing to complain about losing at chess.
>
> It's already happened, with articles for deletion replaced by "merging" on
> the
> grounds that merging is not deletion.
>
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Ken Arromdee]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Noah Salzman wrote:
> Makes sense to me. If the "articles for deletion" process is usurped  
> by the "articles for purgatory" process then it transforms the debate  
> entirely. If you keep losing at chess than change the game to  
> checkers, rather than continuing to complain about losing at chess.

It's already happened, with articles for deletion replaced by "merging" on the
grounds that merging is not deletion.


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Alvaro García]

Oh yes, you're right.

Speedy deletion would be required on some case.


--
Alvaro

On 13-01-2009, at 14:18, "Martijn Hoekstra"  
 wrote:

> Yeah, but that won't work. It needs at least an exception for speedy
> deletion. Slowly I'm starting to notice im heading more in the
> direction of hardcore inclusionists, on grounds off [[WP:HARMLESS]]
> and [[WP:USEFULL]], and stop seeing the use of notability guidelines.
> That said, even if only 1 in 5 AfD deletions represent true consensus,
> then that would still amount to about 6 discussions for which we
> require full community consensus a day, and I just think and hope our
> community would like to have some time left to write articles instead
> of making decissions on deleting articles.
>
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Alvaro García  w 
> rote:
>> It would be great that, instead of deleting an article, the usual
>> deleters would be given a 'flag as source-less/needs improvement'
>> where it would go to a Wikipedia section of poor articles, where
>> people who know would improve them.
>> And, no article, in whatever section, could be deleted unless there's
>> a general consensus.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alvaro
>>
>> On 13-01-2009, at 5:22, Noah Salzman  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:10 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>>>
 These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so
 reader
 wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are "acceptable" in  
 the
 mainstream,
 but they would be present for people already in-world to read and
 edit.
>>>
>>>
>>> Makes sense to me. If the "articles for deletion" process is usurped
>>> by the "articles for purgatory" process then it transforms the  
>>> debate
>>> entirely. If you keep losing at chess than change the game to
>>> checkers, rather than continuing to complain about losing at chess.
>>>
>>> Deletion could remain a standard process but with much clearer and
>>> stricter guidelines. Perhaps, it could be changed to "innocent until
>>> proven guilty" as opposed to the deletion process now where the
>>> defendant has to do a ton of busy work to save a "guilt-assumed"
>>> article.
>>>
>>> As someone somewhat removed from the politics of the project, my  
>>> main
>>> question is what does the step-by-step process look like for making
>>> this change happen? I imagine there is more than one path: grass  
>>> roots
>>> consensus building vs lobbying The Powers That Be?
>>>
>>> My apologies if that is an amusingly naive way of putting it.
>>>
>>> --Noah--
>>>
>>> ___
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
>> ___
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Martijn Hoekstra]

Yeah, but that won't work. It needs at least an exception for speedy
deletion. Slowly I'm starting to notice im heading more in the
direction of hardcore inclusionists, on grounds off [[WP:HARMLESS]]
and [[WP:USEFULL]], and stop seeing the use of notability guidelines.
That said, even if only 1 in 5 AfD deletions represent true consensus,
then that would still amount to about 6 discussions for which we
require full community consensus a day, and I just think and hope our
community would like to have some time left to write articles instead
of making decissions on deleting articles.

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Alvaro García  wrote:
> It would be great that, instead of deleting an article, the usual
> deleters would be given a 'flag as source-less/needs improvement'
> where it would go to a Wikipedia section of poor articles, where
> people who know would improve them.
> And, no article, in whatever section, could be deleted unless there's
> a general consensus.
>
>
> --
> Alvaro
>
> On 13-01-2009, at 5:22, Noah Salzman  wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:10 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so
>>> reader
>>> wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are "acceptable" in the
>>> mainstream,
>>> but they would be present for people already in-world to read and
>>> edit.
>>
>>
>> Makes sense to me. If the "articles for deletion" process is usurped
>> by the "articles for purgatory" process then it transforms the debate
>> entirely. If you keep losing at chess than change the game to
>> checkers, rather than continuing to complain about losing at chess.
>>
>> Deletion could remain a standard process but with much clearer and
>> stricter guidelines. Perhaps, it could be changed to "innocent until
>> proven guilty" as opposed to the deletion process now where the
>> defendant has to do a ton of busy work to save a "guilt-assumed"
>> article.
>>
>> As someone somewhat removed from the politics of the project, my main
>> question is what does the step-by-step process look like for making
>> this change happen? I imagine there is more than one path: grass roots
>> consensus building vs lobbying The Powers That Be?
>>
>> My apologies if that is an amusingly naive way of putting it.
>>
>> --Noah--
>>
>> ___
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Alvaro García]

It would be great that, instead of deleting an article, the usual  
deleters would be given a 'flag as source-less/needs improvement'  
where it would go to a Wikipedia section of poor articles, where  
people who know would improve them.
And, no article, in whatever section, could be deleted unless there's  
a general consensus.


--
Alvaro

On 13-01-2009, at 5:22, Noah Salzman  wrote:

>
> On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:10 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so
>> reader
>> wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are "acceptable" in the
>> mainstream,
>> but they would be present for people already in-world to read and
>> edit.
>
>
> Makes sense to me. If the "articles for deletion" process is usurped
> by the "articles for purgatory" process then it transforms the debate
> entirely. If you keep losing at chess than change the game to
> checkers, rather than continuing to complain about losing at chess.
>
> Deletion could remain a standard process but with much clearer and
> stricter guidelines. Perhaps, it could be changed to "innocent until
> proven guilty" as opposed to the deletion process now where the
> defendant has to do a ton of busy work to save a "guilt-assumed"
> article.
>
> As someone somewhat removed from the politics of the project, my main
> question is what does the step-by-step process look like for making
> this change happen? I imagine there is more than one path: grass roots
> consensus building vs lobbying The Powers That Be?
>
> My apologies if that is an amusingly naive way of putting it.
>
> --Noah--
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

Consider it this way, if the other side is cheating in chess, why should you
want to switch to checkers?
There is no consensus behind the current practice so acting as if it is
commonly accepted does not go beyond being a mere misconception.

  - White Cat



On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Noah Salzman  wrote:

>
> On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:10 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so
> > reader
> > wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are "acceptable" in the
> > mainstream,
> > but they would be present for people already in-world to read and
> > edit.
>
>
> Makes sense to me. If the "articles for deletion" process is usurped
> by the "articles for purgatory" process then it transforms the debate
> entirely. If you keep losing at chess than change the game to
> checkers, rather than continuing to complain about losing at chess.
>
> Deletion could remain a standard process but with much clearer and
> stricter guidelines. Perhaps, it could be changed to "innocent until
> proven guilty" as opposed to the deletion process now where the
> defendant has to do a ton of busy work to save a "guilt-assumed"
> article.
>
> As someone somewhat removed from the politics of the project, my main
> question is what does the step-by-step process look like for making
> this change happen? I imagine there is more than one path: grass roots
> consensus building vs lobbying The Powers That Be?
>
> My apologies if that is an amusingly naive way of putting it.
>
>  --Noah--
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Noah Salzman]

On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:10 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:

> These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so  
> reader
> wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are "acceptable" in the  
> mainstream,
> but they would be present for people already in-world to read and  
> edit.


Makes sense to me. If the "articles for deletion" process is usurped  
by the "articles for purgatory" process then it transforms the debate  
entirely. If you keep losing at chess than change the game to  
checkers, rather than continuing to complain about losing at chess.

Deletion could remain a standard process but with much clearer and  
stricter guidelines. Perhaps, it could be changed to "innocent until  
proven guilty" as opposed to the deletion process now where the  
defendant has to do a ton of busy work to save a "guilt-assumed"  
article.

As someone somewhat removed from the politics of the project, my main  
question is what does the step-by-step process look like for making  
this change happen? I imagine there is more than one path: grass roots  
consensus building vs lobbying The Powers That Be?

My apologies if that is an amusingly naive way of putting it.

  --Noah--

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[WJhonson]

You are not understanding White Cat what the person means by ranking.
 
That there would be a "prime time" Wikipedia, which any reader can find,  and 
then a "sub-surface" Wikipedia for all the articles not deemed ready to go  
to prime time.
 
These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so reader  
wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are "acceptable" in the 
mainstream,  
but they would be present for people already in-world to read and edit.
 
It seems like a simple way to satisfy both sides of the issue here.
 
Will Johnson
 
 
 
**A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De
cemailfooterNO62)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:

> On 11/01/2009, White Cat  wrote:
> > Even so there exits people who mass remove (redirectify/merge/delete -
> take
> > your pick) content. Mass creation isn't that big of a deal. Junk can
> always
> > be dealt with. Junk has never been a serious issue as the definition of
> junk
> > has been rock solid all along.
>
> I do not believe this to be the case. And as you say yourself:
>

Tens of thousands of articles were removed by one individual (User:TTN) via
the means I listed in the past year and a half. This was done without
securing a general consensus. He himself said that his motivation was merely
to get rid of articles he feels are junk (which are practically every
article on fiction). He was sanctioned for his conduct by the
arbitration committee as he was revert waring among other things.


> > A problem has emerged when people decided to
> > expand the definition of junk to include entire categories of articles
> > without securing a consensus for it.
>
> In other words, others definition of junk differs from yours,
> presumably because their value system varies.
>


In other words there is a lack of consensus. Meaning no mass action of any
kind should be taken until a consensus is secured.


>
> > An elite group of self righteous users does not add up to such a
> consensus.
> > If such people truly cared about the well being of the encyclopedia they
> > would have spent the time to secure the consensus before taking action.
>
> Thinking laterally, just an idea:
>
> Slashdot has an interesting thing where they have ratings for
> postings, with different categories. They then permit you to consider
> certain categories to be more or less important to you (e.g. funny
> postings may be raised up in the rating meaning you're more likely to
> see them).
>
> In principle a similar thing could apply to the wikipedia, if we don't
> do a hard delete to articles (or only for the truly nasty vandalism
> stuff), but simply rate them along multiple axes then it could be
> possible for a user to indicate to the wikipedia what he or she
> values, and only articles that are highly enough rated for their own
> set of values would appear, (with a default set of values used for
> anonymous users.)
>
> Doing it that sort of way potentially avoids the either it's suitable
> for our glorious wikipedia; or it isn't dichotomy, and permits poor
> quality articles a chance to improve below the waterline before
> becoming full-fledged articles.
>
> I'm not saying it would be a perfect system, but it would probably be
> better than what we have right now; in other words we would have far
> less deletionism, because we would have far fewer deletes.
>

Can you at least explain me how such a ranking would slow down or stop
deletionism? Such types of ranking already exists.

For example Googles results are based on popularity. If more people are
going to the 'Beowulf 2007' article than the 'Beowulf' article, that is
hardly the fault of the authors of the articles.

More history related topics are featured than fiction related topics. That
alone is a ranking difference if you ask me.

Such a ranking may provoke deletionism more. Consider a case where a history
related topic gets a rating lower than a fiction related topic. Instead of
improving the poorly written history related topic deletionists pursue
seeking the deletion of the fiction related topic (which may not necessarily
be better in quality). It is much easier to delete something than improve
it.

- White Cat


> >-- White Cat
>
> --
> -Ian Woollard
>
> We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly
> imperfect world would be much better.
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

Fiction articles do not deserve to be exiled into someones userspace. Them
being in the article namespace is not disruptive as stub articles are not
banned. If I am wrong in my assessment then all stub articles should be
moved to someones userspace. I wager even the attempt of applying such a
standard to all articles would face a serious resistance. Then again I may
be wrong. Consensus can determine that and anyone can initiate such a
discussion.
If someone wants to hide certain articles in their search results they may
use the minus tag on Google. For example searching

"Topic" -anime -manga -movie -television

would eliminate most of popular culture in your search results. Of course
smarter search words can be chosen depending on what you are looking for.
Here I am merely giving a general example.

- White Cat

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Carcharoth wrote:

>
> I'm not thinking here of articles being rated to allow reader-side
> filtering by setting a value, but of AfD having a userspace to send
> grossly subpar articles to, rather then sending them to userspace. It
> depends how often userfication is successful in producing an improved
> and acceptable article. In many cases, bold recreation can work.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_(online_game)
>
> On the other hand, date context is still a remarkably hard skill to
> knock into people's heads:
>
> "Threshold was, for three consecutive years, The MUD Journal's
> highest-rated role-playing game."
>
> Quite why the article doesn't bother to say *which* three consecutive
> years these were, I don't know.
>
> But getting back to the recreation aspect. Once you *see* an
> acceptable article or stub in place on the ground (after the required
> work has been done, and lots of work is often needed), then many
> objections melt away.
>
> One pitfall, in your system and mine, is who decides when to move
> articles from the incubation namespace to the main namespace (and vice
> versa) and in your system  who decides what the rating of a particular
> article should be to fit the reader-set filtering?
>
> All hypothetical, as you say. At the moment, the best approach is
> rigorously sourced stubs that can slowly grow over time - slower than
> they would if it was just fans of the game or similar editors working
> on it, but of better quality for being held to a higher standard.
>
> Carcharoth
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Alvaro García]

But it's very probable that that person clicked the article to  
actually read it/search it, not raise its quality, which would be in  
2nd place, if the person happens to know about the topic.


--
Alvaro

On 11-01-2009, at 16:22, "Ian Woollard"  wrote:

> 2009/1/11 Carcharoth :
>> That would mess up linking between articles.
>
> No, it would create red links, which would help people find the
> sub-par article and encourage them to improve it.
>
> Red links are usually considered to be broadly positive.
>
>> Carcharoth
>
> -- 
> -Ian Woollard
>
> We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly
> imperfect world would be much better.
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Alvaro García]

I don't think this would work properly, sinve don't forget this is an  
encyclopedia, not a blog, and it is supposed to have the same content  
from everyone; otherwise it would get pretty messed up.
And when you say that only selected articles would appear, you're  
saying there would be some articles one would be unable to read?

--
Alvaro

On 11-01-2009, at 15:34, "Ian Woollard"  wrote:

> On 11/01/2009, White Cat  wrote:
>> Even so there exits people who mass remove (redirectify/merge/ 
>> delete - take
>> your pick) content. Mass creation isn't that big of a deal. Junk  
>> can always
>> be dealt with. Junk has never been a serious issue as the  
>> definition of junk
>> has been rock solid all along.
>
> I do not believe this to be the case. And as you say yourself:
>
>> A problem has emerged when people decided to
>> expand the definition of junk to include entire categories of  
>> articles
>> without securing a consensus for it.
>
> In other words, others definition of junk differs from yours,
> presumably because their value system varies.
>
>> An elite group of self righteous users does not add up to such a  
>> consensus.
>> If such people truly cared about the well being of the encyclopedia  
>> they
>> would have spent the time to secure the consensus before taking  
>> action.
>
> Thinking laterally, just an idea:
>
> Slashdot has an interesting thing where they have ratings for
> postings, with different categories. They then permit you to consider
> certain categories to be more or less important to you (e.g. funny
> postings may be raised up in the rating meaning you're more likely to
> see them).
>
> In principle a similar thing could apply to the wikipedia, if we don't
> do a hard delete to articles (or only for the truly nasty vandalism
> stuff), but simply rate them along multiple axes then it could be
> possible for a user to indicate to the wikipedia what he or she
> values, and only articles that are highly enough rated for their own
> set of values would appear, (with a default set of values used for
> anonymous users.)
>
> Doing it that sort of way potentially avoids the either it's suitable
> for our glorious wikipedia; or it isn't dichotomy, and permits poor
> quality articles a chance to improve below the waterline before
> becoming full-fledged articles.
>
> I'm not saying it would be a perfect system, but it would probably be
> better than what we have right now; in other words we would have far
> less deletionism, because we would have far fewer deletes.
>
>>   -- White Cat
>
> -- 
> -Ian Woollard
>
> We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly
> imperfect world would be much better.
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Carcharoth]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Ian Woollard  wrote:
> 2009/1/11 Carcharoth :
>> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Ian Woollard  wrote:
>>> 2009/1/11 Carcharoth :
 That would mess up linking between articles.
>>>
>>> No, it would create red links, which would help people find the
>>> sub-par article and encourage them to improve it.
>>>
>>> Red links are usually considered to be broadly positive.
>>
>> I agree red links are positive, but people generally think redlinks
>> are the absence of an article. Clicking on a redlink normally gets a
>> screen asking if you want to create an article, not "can you improve
>> this article". A different colour link leading to the "incubation"
>> namespace is probably what you are thinking of, and might work.
>
> This is all hypothetical, but I was thinking that if the article was,
> according to the values you had set, underwater, then the links to it
> would be red, and clicking on them would lead you, not to the article
> page, but to a page with a link to be able to see and edit the subpar
> article.

I'm not thinking here of articles being rated to allow reader-side
filtering by setting a value, but of AfD having a userspace to send
grossly subpar articles to, rather then sending them to userspace. It
depends how often userfication is successful in producing an improved
and acceptable article. In many cases, bold recreation can work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_(online_game)

On the other hand, date context is still a remarkably hard skill to
knock into people's heads:

"Threshold was, for three consecutive years, The MUD Journal's
highest-rated role-playing game."

Quite why the article doesn't bother to say *which* three consecutive
years these were, I don't know.

But getting back to the recreation aspect. Once you *see* an
acceptable article or stub in place on the ground (after the required
work has been done, and lots of work is often needed), then many
objections melt away.

One pitfall, in your system and mine, is who decides when to move
articles from the incubation namespace to the main namespace (and vice
versa) and in your system  who decides what the rating of a particular
article should be to fit the reader-set filtering?

All hypothetical, as you say. At the moment, the best approach is
rigorously sourced stubs that can slowly grow over time - slower than
they would if it was just fans of the game or similar editors working
on it, but of better quality for being held to a higher standard.

Carcharoth

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Ian Woollard]

2009/1/11 Carcharoth :
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Ian Woollard  wrote:
>> 2009/1/11 Carcharoth :
>>> That would mess up linking between articles.
>>
>> No, it would create red links, which would help people find the
>> sub-par article and encourage them to improve it.
>>
>> Red links are usually considered to be broadly positive.
>
> I agree red links are positive, but people generally think redlinks
> are the absence of an article. Clicking on a redlink normally gets a
> screen asking if you want to create an article, not "can you improve
> this article". A different colour link leading to the "incubation"
> namespace is probably what you are thinking of, and might work.

This is all hypothetical, but I was thinking that if the article was,
according to the values you had set, underwater, then the links to it
would be red, and clicking on them would lead you, not to the article
page, but to a page with a link to be able to see and edit the subpar
article.

> Carcharoth

-- 
-Ian Woollard

We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly
imperfect world would be much better.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Carcharoth]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Ian Woollard  wrote:
> 2009/1/11 Carcharoth :
>> That would mess up linking between articles.
>
> No, it would create red links, which would help people find the
> sub-par article and encourage them to improve it.
>
> Red links are usually considered to be broadly positive.

I agree red links are positive, but people generally think redlinks
are the absence of an article. Clicking on a redlink normally gets a
screen asking if you want to create an article, not "can you improve
this article". A different colour link leading to the "incubation"
namespace is probably what you are thinking of, and might work.

Carcharoth

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Ian Woollard]

2009/1/11 Carcharoth :
> That would mess up linking between articles.

No, it would create red links, which would help people find the
sub-par article and encourage them to improve it.

Red links are usually considered to be broadly positive.

> Carcharoth

-- 
-Ian Woollard

We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly
imperfect world would be much better.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Carcharoth]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Ian Woollard  wrote:



> Slashdot has an interesting thing where they have ratings for
> postings, with different categories. They then permit you to consider
> certain categories to be more or less important to you (e.g. funny
> postings may be raised up in the rating meaning you're more likely to
> see them).

I think that has been proposed before and reejcted. Could be proposed
again, I suppose.

> In principle a similar thing could apply to the wikipedia, if we don't
> do a hard delete to articles (or only for the truly nasty vandalism
> stuff), but simply rate them along multiple axes then it could be
> possible for a user to indicate to the wikipedia what he or she
> values, and only articles that are highly enough rated for their own
> set of values would appear, (with a default set of values used for
> anonymous users.)

That would mess up linking between articles.

> Doing it that sort of way potentially avoids the either it's suitable
> for our glorious wikipedia; or it isn't dichotomy, and permits poor
> quality articles a chance to improve below the waterline before
> becoming full-fledged articles.

Userspace is generally used for article incubation in controversial
cases. Having a Wikipedia project place or namespace for this is not a
bad idea though.

> I'm not saying it would be a perfect system, but it would probably be
> better than what we have right now; in other words we would have far
> less deletionism, because we would have far fewer deletes.

You might get arguments over links and redirections to or from or not
(as the case may be) this namespace.

Carcharoth

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Ian Woollard]

On 11/01/2009, White Cat  wrote:
> Even so there exits people who mass remove (redirectify/merge/delete - take
> your pick) content. Mass creation isn't that big of a deal. Junk can always
> be dealt with. Junk has never been a serious issue as the definition of junk
> has been rock solid all along.

I do not believe this to be the case. And as you say yourself:

> A problem has emerged when people decided to
> expand the definition of junk to include entire categories of articles
> without securing a consensus for it.

In other words, others definition of junk differs from yours,
presumably because their value system varies.

> An elite group of self righteous users does not add up to such a consensus.
> If such people truly cared about the well being of the encyclopedia they
> would have spent the time to secure the consensus before taking action.

Thinking laterally, just an idea:

Slashdot has an interesting thing where they have ratings for
postings, with different categories. They then permit you to consider
certain categories to be more or less important to you (e.g. funny
postings may be raised up in the rating meaning you're more likely to
see them).

In principle a similar thing could apply to the wikipedia, if we don't
do a hard delete to articles (or only for the truly nasty vandalism
stuff), but simply rate them along multiple axes then it could be
possible for a user to indicate to the wikipedia what he or she
values, and only articles that are highly enough rated for their own
set of values would appear, (with a default set of values used for
anonymous users.)

Doing it that sort of way potentially avoids the either it's suitable
for our glorious wikipedia; or it isn't dichotomy, and permits poor
quality articles a chance to improve below the waterline before
becoming full-fledged articles.

I'm not saying it would be a perfect system, but it would probably be
better than what we have right now; in other words we would have far
less deletionism, because we would have far fewer deletes.

>-- White Cat

-- 
-Ian Woollard

We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly
imperfect world would be much better.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

Even so there exits people who mass remove (redirectify/merge/delete - take
your pick) content. Mass creation isn't that big of a deal. Junk can always
be dealt with. Junk has never been a serious issue as the definition of junk
has been rock solid all along. A problem has emerged when people decided to
expand the definition of junk to include entire categories of articles
without securing a consensus for it.

An elite group of self righteous users does not add up to such a consensus.
If such people truly cared about the well being of the encyclopedia they
would have spent the time to secure the consensus before taking action.

The issue surrounding fiction related articles and other unimportant topics
needs a resolution and I am willing to settle with any kind of resolution at
this point.

   -- White Cat


On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:

> On 10/01/2009, White Cat  wrote:
> > Interesting... But the actual point of this thread remains unanswered.
> >- White Cat
>
> The real underlying problem is that no one has any defensible bright
> line as to what the scope of an encyclopedia is.
>
> Somebody clever may be able to find one though. Perhaps some sort of
> points system or statistically based technique could be devised.
>
> --
> -Ian Woollard
>
> We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly
> imperfect world would be much better.
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[WJhonson]

<>
 
Five principal authors of Wikipedia.
I can smell that Academy Award right now!
 


**New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews0002)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Andrew Cates]

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:09 AM,   wrote:
>
> In a message dated 1/8/2009 1:08:02 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> dger...@gmail.com writes:
>
> I think  these are all subclasses of the problem "the GFDL is horriby
> vague and  broken rubbish that even the FSF has given up on answering
> questions about"  and we can't move to CC by-sa fast enough.>>

As per previous discussion and
[[Wikipedia_talk:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License]] Duncan
Harris made this comment which I agree with

 "The way I see it the Document referred to in the GFDL cannot be
an individual Wikipedia article. It has to be the whole of Wikipedia.
If the Document were an individual article then Wikipedia would be in
breach of its own license. Every time people copy text between
articles then they would create a Modified Version under the GFDL.
They mostly do not comply with GFDL section 4 under these
circumstances on a number of points.
So the only sensible interpretations are the whole of English
Wikipedia or the whole of Wikipedia as the GFDL Document. This has the
following implications for GFDL compliance: - only need to give
network location of Wikipedia, not individual articles - only need to
give five principal authors of Wikipedia, not of individual articles -
no real section Entitled "History", so no requirement to copy that"

Roll on a better license, we all agree.

Andrew

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Ian Woollard]

On 10/01/2009, White Cat  wrote:
> Interesting... But the actual point of this thread remains unanswered.
>- White Cat

The real underlying problem is that no one has any defensible bright
line as to what the scope of an encyclopedia is.

Somebody clever may be able to find one though. Perhaps some sort of
points system or statistically based technique could be devised.

-- 
-Ian Woollard

We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly
imperfect world would be much better.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

Interesting... But the actual point of this thread remains unanswered.
   - White Cat

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Falcorian <
alex.public.account+enwikimailingl...@gmail.com
> wrote:

> Actually, the new version is out and allows us to start dual licensing.
> Discussing is taking place on EN here: [[Wikipedia talk:Transition to
> CC-BY-SA]]
>
> A final vote will be on Meta to move all the projects.
>
> --Falcorian
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 1:11 AM, White Cat
> wrote:
>
> > Legal reasons. GFDL isn't compatible with it. GFDLs new version is said
> to
> > be compatible but the release of that has been delayed many times so far.
> > - White Cat
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:09 AM,  wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > In a message dated 1/8/2009 1:08:02 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> > > dger...@gmail.com writes:
> > >
> > > I think  these are all subclasses of the problem "the GFDL is horriby
> > > vague and  broken rubbish that even the FSF has given up on answering
> > > questions about"  and we can't move to CC by-sa fast enough.>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > What is holding up the move?
> > >
> > >
> > > **New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making
> > > headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026)
> > > ___
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > ___
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Falcorian]

Actually, the new version is out and allows us to start dual licensing.
Discussing is taking place on EN here: [[Wikipedia talk:Transition to
CC-BY-SA]]

A final vote will be on Meta to move all the projects.

--Falcorian


On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 1:11 AM, White Cat
wrote:

> Legal reasons. GFDL isn't compatible with it. GFDLs new version is said to
> be compatible but the release of that has been delayed many times so far.
> - White Cat
>
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:09 AM,  wrote:
>
> >
> > In a message dated 1/8/2009 1:08:02 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> > dger...@gmail.com writes:
> >
> > I think  these are all subclasses of the problem "the GFDL is horriby
> > vague and  broken rubbish that even the FSF has given up on answering
> > questions about"  and we can't move to CC by-sa fast enough.>>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > What is holding up the move?
> >
> >
> > **New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making
> > headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026)
> > ___
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

Legal reasons. GFDL isn't compatible with it. GFDLs new version is said to
be compatible but the release of that has been delayed many times so far.
- White Cat

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:09 AM,  wrote:

>
> In a message dated 1/8/2009 1:08:02 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> dger...@gmail.com writes:
>
> I think  these are all subclasses of the problem "the GFDL is horriby
> vague and  broken rubbish that even the FSF has given up on answering
> questions about"  and we can't move to CC by-sa fast enough.>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> What is holding up the move?
>
>
> **New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making
> headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026)
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[WJhonson]

 
In a message dated 1/8/2009 1:08:02 AM Pacific Standard Time,  
dger...@gmail.com writes:

I think  these are all subclasses of the problem "the GFDL is horriby
vague and  broken rubbish that even the FSF has given up on answering
questions about"  and we can't move to CC by-sa fast enough.>>



--
 
What is holding up the move?
 
 
**New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[David Gerard]

2009/1/8  :

> Whether or not Geni's interpretation of this particular point is on-target
> is tied as well to our current blatant disregard for mirrors which do not even
> link to the history page in the first place.  I mentioned that a while back
> and since then I know of nothing that the foundation or any other official
> group  has done to look into it.
> If we ignore these supposed violations of the GFDL, there will come a point
> when any suit over any new violation can simply use the same argument as
> "historic right-of-way" that is, "its been this way for a long time and 
> they've
> done nothing about it."
> Of course the interpretation that all mirrors (and our own merges) even  need
> to link in all of history, is still open to debate.


I think these are all subclasses of the problem "the GFDL is horriby
vague and broken rubbish that even the FSF has given up on answering
questions about" and we can't move to CC by-sa fast enough.


- d.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[WJhonson]

 
In a message dated 1/8/2009 12:40:10 AM Pacific Standard Time,  
wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com writes:

As for  your interest in this thread (intended point)... I think Geni is
right in  saying that our current practice of merging is in violation of
GFDL. We  cannot ignore any part of the GFDL license as it is legally
binding. A  solution to the problem can be achieved culturally (by altering
our merge  practices) and technically (by altering the source code - perhaps
the  creation of a [[Special:Merge]]).>>


--
Whether or not Geni's interpretation of this particular point is on-target  
is tied as well to our current blatant disregard for mirrors which do not even  
link to the history page in the first place.  I mentioned that a while back  
and since then I know of nothing that the foundation or any other official 
group  has done to look into it.
 
If we ignore these supposed violations of the GFDL, there will come a point  
when any suit over any new violation can simply use the same argument as  
"historic right-of-way" that is, "its been this way for a long time and they've 
 
done nothing about it."
 
Of course the interpretation that all mirrors (and our own merges) even  need 
to link in all of history, is still open to debate.
 
Will Johnson
 
 
**New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

I do not have a personal war over fiction. I hardly edit the topic area. I
should have no more than 10 edits in the past year plus. It is very
distasteful to improve articles on fiction nowadays with the amount of crap
you need to put up with. And this thread isn't only about fiction related
articles and has a much broader range.
As for your interest in this thread (intended point)... I think Geni is
right in saying that our current practice of merging is in violation of
GFDL. We cannot ignore any part of the GFDL license as it is legally
binding. A solution to the problem can be achieved culturally (by altering
our merge practices) and technically (by altering the source code - perhaps
the creation of a [[Special:Merge]]). This isn't the first time GFDL has
caused us pain and I do not think it will be the last. Please do not panic.

   - White Cat

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:12 AM,  wrote:

>
> In a message dated 1/8/2009 12:06:36 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com writes:
>
> I am  sorry? Who encouraged merging? There is no consensus behind that.
> Merge
> was  proposed as a compromise to the mass deletion/inclusion war but it
>  was
> never commonly accepted. If it was I want to see the evidence of  that
> consensus.>>
>
>
> 
> I am not speaking of *your* personal war over fiction.
> I am speaking of the broader issue of the merging of *anything*
>  in-project.
>
> We, as a community, encourage the merging of stubs.  That has been the
>  case
> since before I even started editing five years back.  I myself have  merged
> some articles in the past, although only a handful.
>
> It would be sadistic if, the idea that merging, which in and of itself, is
>  a
> seemingly innocuous edit, would carry as-well the *hidden hammer* of
> copyright  infringement.  Wouldn't it?
>
> Here's how you merge... oh you've done it?  Well good, now I can  clobber
> the
> hell out of you.
> That's not the spirit of the project.  Therefore there is a  contradiction
> somewhere in the assumptions.
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
> **New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making
> headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026)
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[WJhonson]

 
In a message dated 1/8/2009 12:06:36 AM Pacific Standard Time,  
wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com writes:

I am  sorry? Who encouraged merging? There is no consensus behind that. Merge
was  proposed as a compromise to the mass deletion/inclusion war but it  was
never commonly accepted. If it was I want to see the evidence of  that
consensus.>>



I am not speaking of *your* personal war over fiction.
I am speaking of the broader issue of the merging of *anything*  in-project.
 
We, as a community, encourage the merging of stubs.  That has been the  case 
since before I even started editing five years back.  I myself have  merged 
some articles in the past, although only a handful.
 
It would be sadistic if, the idea that merging, which in and of itself, is  a 
seemingly innocuous edit, would carry as-well the *hidden hammer* of 
copyright  infringement.  Wouldn't it?
 
Here's how you merge... oh you've done it?  Well good, now I can  clobber the 
hell out of you.
That's not the spirit of the project.  Therefore there is a  contradiction 
somewhere in the assumptions.
 
Will Johnson
 
 
**New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

I am sorry? Who encouraged merging? There is no consensus behind that. Merge
was proposed as a compromise to the mass deletion/inclusion war but it was
never commonly accepted. If it was I want to see the evidence of that
consensus.
   - White Cat

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:41 AM,  wrote:

>
> In a message dated 1/7/2009 11:35:47 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com writes:
>
> Just  like "deleting" a merge requires admin tools. You are welcome to file
>  a
> bugzilla on this.>>
>
>
> 
> It's not at all like it.
> In this case, anyone can do a merge.  You simply cut and paste the  text
> and
> then redirect the page.  This is open to any editor.   However, some
> commentators are stating that doing this violates the license, and  the
> *sole* way to
> do it without doing so, would be to use tools that some  editors do not
> have.
>
> So we set up a situation, where we allow and encourage merging, and then
> when editors actually do it, we threaten them with a copyright infringement
> lawsuit.
>
> That is not acceptable.  I'm not going to file a "bug report", because
>  this
> is an conflicting interpretation of what we can, should, may, or might  do.
>  I
> don't personally think we need the history in order to fulfill the  license
> requirements.  But I'll strenously object to anyone trying to use  that to
> clobber mergers when we are allowing and encouraging them to do exactly
>  that.
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
>
> **New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making
> headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026)
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[WJhonson]

 
In a message dated 1/7/2009 11:35:47 PM Pacific Standard Time,  
wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com writes:

Just  like "deleting" a merge requires admin tools. You are welcome to file  a
bugzilla on this.>>



It's not at all like it.
In this case, anyone can do a merge.  You simply cut and paste the  text and 
then redirect the page.  This is open to any editor.   However, some 
commentators are stating that doing this violates the license, and  the *sole* 
way to 
do it without doing so, would be to use tools that some  editors do not have.
 
So we set up a situation, where we allow and encourage merging, and then  
when editors actually do it, we threaten them with a copyright infringement  
lawsuit.
 
That is not acceptable.  I'm not going to file a "bug report", because  this 
is an conflicting interpretation of what we can, should, may, or might  do.  I 
don't personally think we need the history in order to fulfill the  license 
requirements.  But I'll strenously object to anyone trying to use  that to 
clobber mergers when we are allowing and encouraging them to do exactly  that.
 
Will Johnson
 
 
 
**New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

Just like "deleting" a merge requires admin tools. You are welcome to file a
bugzilla on this.
   - White Cat

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:33 AM,  wrote:

> In a message dated 1/7/2009 11:30:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com writes:
>
> It is  not a problem at all. A merge is a slow and delicate process. It
> takes
> time  an energy. One should not be trying (or claiming) to be merging
> hundreds of  articles in a matter of a day.>>
> -
> That is not relevant to my point.
> My point is that if only admins can do a merge, than we have failed.
> Merging is an editorial job, it should be done by editors.  It has  nothing
> to do with being an admin or not, which is a janitorial function, having
> little to do with editorial functions.
>
> Our task is supposed to be a project which any responsible person can edit.
> To state that a task like this can only be done by admins, is not an
> acceptable  position.
>
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
>
> **New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making
> headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026)
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[WJhonson]

In a message dated 1/7/2009 11:30:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,  
wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com writes:

It is  not a problem at all. A merge is a slow and delicate process. It takes
time  an energy. One should not be trying (or claiming) to be merging
hundreds of  articles in a matter of a day.>>
-
That is not relevant to my point.
My point is that if only admins can do a merge, than we have failed.
Merging is an editorial job, it should be done by editors.  It has  nothing 
to do with being an admin or not, which is a janitorial function, having  
little to do with editorial functions.
 
Our task is supposed to be a project which any responsible person can edit.  
To state that a task like this can only be done by admins, is not an 
acceptable  position.

 
Will Johnson
 
 
 
**New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

It is not a problem at all. A merge is a slow and delicate process. It takes
time an energy. One should not be trying (or claiming) to be merging
hundreds of articles in a matter of a day.
That is of course the kind of merge people normally do. In the case of this
thread a "merge" can be the complete removal of all content.
- White Cat

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:25 AM,  wrote:

>
> In a message dated 1/7/2009 11:20:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com writes:
>
> Any  admin can merge page histories through import or  delete/undelete.
> - White Cat>>
>
>
> 
> Then that's a problem isn't it?
> The rest of our editors cannot do this.  That's a fairly fatal flaw to  our
> ability to state that the license must be followed on this technical
>  point.
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
> **New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making
> headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026)
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[WJhonson]

 
In a message dated 1/7/2009 11:20:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,  
wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com writes:

Any  admin can merge page histories through import or  delete/undelete.
- White Cat>>



Then that's a problem isn't it?
The rest of our editors cannot do this.  That's a fairly fatal flaw to  our 
ability to state that the license must be followed on this technical  point.
 
Will Johnson
 
 
**New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

Any admin can merge page histories through import or delete/undelete.
   - White Cat

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:34 AM,  wrote:

>
> In a message dated 1/5/2009 11:21:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> geni...@gmail.com writes:
>
> When you  merge the wording of the GFDL requires that you preserve the
> history (a  really really bad choice of words). Can be done close
> enough through a  history merge but most users don't/can't do  that.>>
>
>
> ---
>
> If most users *can't* do this, then I'd say we really have no choice but to
> ignore that part of the GFDL.
>
> We are supposed to be writing a project that all users can write without
>  the
> threat of being sued for some obscure technical flaw.  If our software
> cannot compensate for that, that is the fault of the foundation, not of the
> editors.  Unless we are suddenly going to proclaim that "only bureaucrats
>  can
> merge!" or whatever.
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
>
> **New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making
> headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026)
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[WJhonson]

 
In a message dated 1/5/2009 11:21:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,  
geni...@gmail.com writes:

When you  merge the wording of the GFDL requires that you preserve the
history (a  really really bad choice of words). Can be done close
enough through a  history merge but most users don't/can't do  that.>>


---
 
If most users *can't* do this, then I'd say we really have no choice but to  
ignore that part of the GFDL.
 
We are supposed to be writing a project that all users can write without  the 
threat of being sued for some obscure technical flaw.  If our software  
cannot compensate for that, that is the fault of the foundation, not of the  
editors.  Unless we are suddenly going to proclaim that "only bureaucrats  can 
merge!" or whatever.
 
Will Johnson
 
 
 
**New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

2009/1/6 White Cat 

> Am I over extending myself when I wish to see proof of consensus behind the
> mass removals?


There is no consensus, and there never will be, by definition almost: we'll
never have "serious treatment of every group member's considered opinion". And
I don't think this is something that can be solved by consensus anyway.

As David Goodman said: it's time for a firm policy. From on high: decide
once and for all on the inclusionist/deletionist party line, and then stick
to it.

The way things are now, it's much easier by far for radical deletionists to
have their way than for any sort of inclusionist, for obvious reasons: a
delete or delete-by-redirect is done in a fraction of the time it takes to
write an article.

Everywhere you look, articles are being deleted, and it's not limited to
Episodes & Characters of webcomics--just now I tried to look up [[Julie
Powell]] (film starring Meryl Streep in production about her, reliable
sources up the wazoo): article deleted for lack of notability.

How can you look at a spree like [[user:TTN]]'s and *not* feel bad? Add up
the hours spent editing the articles he's deleting, the hours wasted trying
to stop the deletion, the editors disgusted, discouraged and driven away...

The Economist was not exagerating, last year, when they called it a battle
for the soul of Wikipedia. This situation is getting worse all the time.

And it's time someone put a stop to it.

Either say we're like a paper encyclopedia and we don't do popular culture,
we discourage stubs, we insist on extremely broad notability and we think of
ourselves a a kind of Encyclopedia Brittanica. Or say we're like the
Wikipedia I started editing in 2002.

Michel Vuijlsteke
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

It is hard to cooperate when people are taking mass action and showing you
the middle finger. They only seek a discussion when they are either cornered
or when the presence of a discussion make them look "legit". I or anyone
should not be living with a group of self righteous individuals or groups
who interpret policy as they see fit. It is arbcoms role to stop such
disruption. Only after that can there be fruitful discussions - when the
disruption ceases.
Either people mass removing content are being disruptive or people getting
in the way. Cause you cannot have two conflicting consensus at the same
time. That would be a lack of consensus!  No mater how you look at it, there
is no consensus on the matter which is a default keep not a default delete.

I think there is an ironic self conflicting nature of this issue. Presence
of slur and misinformation on "important" articles has legal consequences.
This is why we have a [[WP:BLP]] policy which was drafted as a continuation
of policies like [[WP:V]], and [[WP:RS]]. In the case of "important"
articles we need immediate action.

Policies like [[WP:BLP]] does not apply to "unimportant" articles because
there are no urgent reasons to address various [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]
issues. Someone is yet to explain me the irgency prompting mass deletion.

I guess it is a philosophical situation. What do you do to an article that
isn't "perfect". Do you delete it or improve it? Or let someone else improve
it.

-- White Cat

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:12 AM, George Herbert wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 5:03 PM, David Goodman 
> wrote:
>
> > What harms  the public view of Wikipedia is not articles on minor
> > subjects, or on matters i anyone will understand are of significance
> > only to fans. What really harms the perceived quality of  Wikipedia is
> > promotional and inaccurate articles. almost everyone can realize that
> > the content of a reference work may  include things they do not
> > themselves want--but they do expect it to be both honest and accurate.
> >
> > We could decide either for or against the detailed coverage of popular
> > culture, but what we cannot tolerate  is the diversion of effort in
> > dealing with this. There is of course an obvious solution, which is to
> > silence everyone who does not agree with me, but that's not going to
> > fly. What we need is some way of not just forming a compromise but
> > having it persist--otherwise any solution will be back to the same
> > point in a few months. Arb com apparently does not think it is capable
> > of this, but I don't see how else it can be done--they should try a
> > little more boldness. Since they'll be criticised whatever they choose
> > to do or not to do, they might as well decide.
> >
>
> Arbcom isn't supposed to be there to make policy.
>
> The diversion of effort dealing with this has been part of a long drawn out
> war over inclusionism or deletionism.  Which has never settled to a
> consensus.
>
> Your belief that we cannot tolerate the diversion of effort is common, but
> also *extremely* dangerous...  This is a community, the community is
> divided, has some fairly fundamental disagreements over what it wants to
> be,
> and the politics and dynamics and discussion over those fundamental
> disagreements are how we stay one community and avoid forking or driving
> away a large part of the community.
>
> Part of the problem here is that we have two sets of idealists (purist
> exclusionists, who think that non-serious topics should not be considered,
> and purist inclusionists, who think that everything must be), who naturally
> talk past each other as they have fundamental goals disagreements, combined
> with two sets of realists (realist inclusionists who are deleting primarily
> over quality and RS issues, and realist inclusionists who favor the
> gradualist approach on article quality and prefer to work on article
> quantity for the time being) who are talking past each other when they
> could
> engage more productively.
>
> Along with many in the middle who wish no part in duking it out.
>
> Perhaps there is fruitful discussion to be had in getting the two realist
> camps to cooperate.  There is nothing gained among either realist camp by
> denying that a number of the popular culture articles have been woefully
> badly sourced and unencyclopedic, or in denying that popular culture
> articles are popular and desired by a lot of article editors (and
> presumably
> readers, assuming that readership follows editorship interest trends).
>
> Coming to a cooperative resolution of the "Delete vs Improve" problem would
> get us enough of the way there that setting both the purist camps on fire
> and hearing the lament of their women would become a credible and possibly
> legitimate way to solve the problem.
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herb...@gmail.com
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe fr

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[David Goodman]

If you and I were the people involved, we could reach a compromise.
Indeed, for about 90%of the people who care about the issue, we could
reach a compromise. This leaves 2 ways of proceeding:

remove or silence the most difficult 1%.
compel them to reach a compromise--which amounts to binding
arbitration of policy

Arb com can of course do the first of these. That's a way which on
other topics has not proven the least successful--there is always
someone else to continue the position.

 Or make policy. I know it pretends not to have that capability, but
they've done it before. It may not have done it very well, but they've
done it.  As for what the community will accept, I predict it will
accept what works, provided it does work.

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 9:12 PM, George Herbert  wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 5:03 PM, David Goodman  wrote:
>
>> What harms  the public view of Wikipedia is not articles on minor
>> subjects, or on matters i anyone will understand are of significance
>> only to fans. What really harms the perceived quality of  Wikipedia is
>> promotional and inaccurate articles. almost everyone can realize that
>> the content of a reference work may  include things they do not
>> themselves want--but they do expect it to be both honest and accurate.
>>
>> We could decide either for or against the detailed coverage of popular
>> culture, but what we cannot tolerate  is the diversion of effort in
>> dealing with this. There is of course an obvious solution, which is to
>> silence everyone who does not agree with me, but that's not going to
>> fly. What we need is some way of not just forming a compromise but
>> having it persist--otherwise any solution will be back to the same
>> point in a few months. Arb com apparently does not think it is capable
>> of this, but I don't see how else it can be done--they should try a
>> little more boldness. Since they'll be criticised whatever they choose
>> to do or not to do, they might as well decide.
>>
>
> Arbcom isn't supposed to be there to make policy.
>
> The diversion of effort dealing with this has been part of a long drawn out
> war over inclusionism or deletionism.  Which has never settled to a
> consensus.
>
> Your belief that we cannot tolerate the diversion of effort is common, but
> also *extremely* dangerous...  This is a community, the community is
> divided, has some fairly fundamental disagreements over what it wants to be,
> and the politics and dynamics and discussion over those fundamental
> disagreements are how we stay one community and avoid forking or driving
> away a large part of the community.
>
> Part of the problem here is that we have two sets of idealists (purist
> exclusionists, who think that non-serious topics should not be considered,
> and purist inclusionists, who think that everything must be), who naturally
> talk past each other as they have fundamental goals disagreements, combined
> with two sets of realists (realist inclusionists who are deleting primarily
> over quality and RS issues, and realist inclusionists who favor the
> gradualist approach on article quality and prefer to work on article
> quantity for the time being) who are talking past each other when they could
> engage more productively.
>
> Along with many in the middle who wish no part in duking it out.
>
> Perhaps there is fruitful discussion to be had in getting the two realist
> camps to cooperate.  There is nothing gained among either realist camp by
> denying that a number of the popular culture articles have been woefully
> badly sourced and unencyclopedic, or in denying that popular culture
> articles are popular and desired by a lot of article editors (and presumably
> readers, assuming that readership follows editorship interest trends).
>
> Coming to a cooperative resolution of the "Delete vs Improve" problem would
> get us enough of the way there that setting both the purist camps on fire
> and hearing the lament of their women would become a credible and possibly
> legitimate way to solve the problem.
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herb...@gmail.com
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

Am I over extending myself when I wish to see proof of consensus behind the
mass removals?

   - White Cat
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[George Herbert]

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 5:03 PM, David Goodman  wrote:

> What harms  the public view of Wikipedia is not articles on minor
> subjects, or on matters i anyone will understand are of significance
> only to fans. What really harms the perceived quality of  Wikipedia is
> promotional and inaccurate articles. almost everyone can realize that
> the content of a reference work may  include things they do not
> themselves want--but they do expect it to be both honest and accurate.
>
> We could decide either for or against the detailed coverage of popular
> culture, but what we cannot tolerate  is the diversion of effort in
> dealing with this. There is of course an obvious solution, which is to
> silence everyone who does not agree with me, but that's not going to
> fly. What we need is some way of not just forming a compromise but
> having it persist--otherwise any solution will be back to the same
> point in a few months. Arb com apparently does not think it is capable
> of this, but I don't see how else it can be done--they should try a
> little more boldness. Since they'll be criticised whatever they choose
> to do or not to do, they might as well decide.
>

Arbcom isn't supposed to be there to make policy.

The diversion of effort dealing with this has been part of a long drawn out
war over inclusionism or deletionism.  Which has never settled to a
consensus.

Your belief that we cannot tolerate the diversion of effort is common, but
also *extremely* dangerous...  This is a community, the community is
divided, has some fairly fundamental disagreements over what it wants to be,
and the politics and dynamics and discussion over those fundamental
disagreements are how we stay one community and avoid forking or driving
away a large part of the community.

Part of the problem here is that we have two sets of idealists (purist
exclusionists, who think that non-serious topics should not be considered,
and purist inclusionists, who think that everything must be), who naturally
talk past each other as they have fundamental goals disagreements, combined
with two sets of realists (realist inclusionists who are deleting primarily
over quality and RS issues, and realist inclusionists who favor the
gradualist approach on article quality and prefer to work on article
quantity for the time being) who are talking past each other when they could
engage more productively.

Along with many in the middle who wish no part in duking it out.

Perhaps there is fruitful discussion to be had in getting the two realist
camps to cooperate.  There is nothing gained among either realist camp by
denying that a number of the popular culture articles have been woefully
badly sourced and unencyclopedic, or in denying that popular culture
articles are popular and desired by a lot of article editors (and presumably
readers, assuming that readership follows editorship interest trends).

Coming to a cooperative resolution of the "Delete vs Improve" problem would
get us enough of the way there that setting both the purist camps on fire
and hearing the lament of their women would become a credible and possibly
legitimate way to solve the problem.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

Indeed. I can sign under this. Wait... I have...  :)

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:03 AM, David Goodman  wrote:

> What harms  the public view of Wikipedia is not articles on minor
> subjects, or on matters i anyone will understand are of significance
> only to fans. What really harms the perceived quality of  Wikipedia is
> promotional and inaccurate articles. almost everyone can realize that
> the content of a reference work may  include things they do not
> themselves want--but they do expect it to be both honest and accurate.
>
> We could decide either for or against the detailed coverage of popular
> culture, but what we cannot tolerate  is the diversion of effort in
> dealing with this. There is of course an obvious solution, which is to
> silence everyone who does not agree with me, but that's not going to
> fly. What we need is some way of not just forming a compromise but
> having it persist--otherwise any solution will be back to the same
> point in a few months. Arb com apparently does not think it is capable
> of this, but I don't see how else it can be done--they should try a
> little more boldness. Since they'll be criticised whatever they choose
> to do or not to do, they might as well decide.
>
> --
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
>
  - White Cat
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[David Goodman]

What harms  the public view of Wikipedia is not articles on minor
subjects, or on matters i anyone will understand are of significance
only to fans. What really harms the perceived quality of  Wikipedia is
promotional and inaccurate articles. almost everyone can realize that
the content of a reference work may  include things they do not
themselves want--but they do expect it to be both honest and accurate.

We could decide either for or against the detailed coverage of popular
culture, but what we cannot tolerate  is the diversion of effort in
dealing with this. There is of course an obvious solution, which is to
silence everyone who does not agree with me, but that's not going to
fly. What we need is some way of not just forming a compromise but
having it persist--otherwise any solution will be back to the same
point in a few months. Arb com apparently does not think it is capable
of this, but I don't see how else it can be done--they should try a
little more boldness. Since they'll be criticised whatever they choose
to do or not to do, they might as well decide.


On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 4:21 PM, White Cat
 wrote:
> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/JustBugsMe/Wikipedia
>
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:05 PM, White Cat
> wrote:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Most_visited_articles
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:50 PM, White Cat <
>> wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-01-03/Editing_stats
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:46 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
>>>
 2009/1/5 White Cat :

 > I hope everyone is okay with the mass purging of "unimportant" articles
 in
 > bulk quantities. Just wanted to point out the obvious. You can now
 return to
 > whatever you were doing.



 http://ragesossscholar.blogspot.com/2009/01/will-stanton-usability-grant-stop.html

 The community is actually *declining*, to a hard core of those who
 would fail a Turing test.

 The next trick is to stick around it longer than the usual 12-18 month
 contributor cycle and see what's left of the encyclopedia.


 - d.

 ___
 WikiEN-l mailing list
 WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

>>>
>>>
>>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/JustBugsMe/Wikipedia

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:05 PM, White Cat
wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Most_visited_articles
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:50 PM, White Cat <
> wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-01-03/Editing_stats
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:46 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
>>
>>> 2009/1/5 White Cat :
>>>
>>> > I hope everyone is okay with the mass purging of "unimportant" articles
>>> in
>>> > bulk quantities. Just wanted to point out the obvious. You can now
>>> return to
>>> > whatever you were doing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://ragesossscholar.blogspot.com/2009/01/will-stanton-usability-grant-stop.html
>>>
>>> The community is actually *declining*, to a hard core of those who
>>> would fail a Turing test.
>>>
>>> The next trick is to stick around it longer than the usual 12-18 month
>>> contributor cycle and see what's left of the encyclopedia.
>>>
>>>
>>> - d.
>>>
>>> ___
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>>
>>
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Most_visited_articles

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:50 PM, White Cat
wrote:

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-01-03/Editing_stats
>
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:46 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
>
>> 2009/1/5 White Cat :
>>
>> > I hope everyone is okay with the mass purging of "unimportant" articles
>> in
>> > bulk quantities. Just wanted to point out the obvious. You can now
>> return to
>> > whatever you were doing.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://ragesossscholar.blogspot.com/2009/01/will-stanton-usability-grant-stop.html
>>
>> The community is actually *declining*, to a hard core of those who
>> would fail a Turing test.
>>
>> The next trick is to stick around it longer than the usual 12-18 month
>> contributor cycle and see what's left of the encyclopedia.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> ___
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-01-03/Editing_stats

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:46 AM, David Gerard  wrote:

> 2009/1/5 White Cat :
>
> > I hope everyone is okay with the mass purging of "unimportant" articles
> in
> > bulk quantities. Just wanted to point out the obvious. You can now return
> to
> > whatever you were doing.
>
>
>
> http://ragesossscholar.blogspot.com/2009/01/will-stanton-usability-grant-stop.html
>
> The community is actually *declining*, to a hard core of those who
> would fail a Turing test.
>
> The next trick is to stick around it longer than the usual 12-18 month
> contributor cycle and see what's left of the encyclopedia.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

Like I said... blocking TTN for an hour or two or even indefinitely wouldn't
solve the problem.
The real issue at hand is that we are at a forking road and we need to
decide which way we want to go:
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354

The main problem is a lack of consensus. A solid consensus for or against
the mass removal of fiction related articles would suffice.

- White Cat

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Thedjatclubrock EnWiki <
tdjacr.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If I'm correct, you need to attribute the authors in the edit summary,
> an HTML comment, or by any other means within the article. I do not
> believe that a link to another external history page is sufficient for
> GFDL attribution.
>
> On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 20:27 +0100, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 8:21 PM, geni  wrote:
> > > 2009/1/5  :
> > >> < > >> geni...@gmail.com writes:
> > >>
> > >> Mostly  because from time to time they have actually moved
> > >> content from one article  from another (the rest of the time you can
> > >> nail them for persistently lying  in edit summaries). Given the format
> > >> of the mediawiki software and the GFDL  it is pretty much impossible
> to
> > >> do such merges without violating  copyright>>
> > >>
> > >> Could you explain a bit more why you think that merges violate
>  copyright?
> > >> Thanks
> > >> Will Johnson
> > >
> > > When you merge the wording of the GFDL requires that you preserve the
> > > history (a really really bad choice of words). Can be done close
> > > enough through a history merge but most users don't/can't do that.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > geni
> > >
> > > ___
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> >
> > Won't it satisfy the licence just to point to the other articles
> > history in the edit summary?
> >
> > ___
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Thedjatclubrock EnWiki]

If I'm correct, you need to attribute the authors in the edit summary,
an HTML comment, or by any other means within the article. I do not
believe that a link to another external history page is sufficient for
GFDL attribution.

On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 20:27 +0100, Martijn Hoekstra wrote: 
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 8:21 PM, geni  wrote:
> > 2009/1/5  :
> >> < >> geni...@gmail.com writes:
> >>
> >> Mostly  because from time to time they have actually moved
> >> content from one article  from another (the rest of the time you can
> >> nail them for persistently lying  in edit summaries). Given the format
> >> of the mediawiki software and the GFDL  it is pretty much impossible to
> >> do such merges without violating  copyright>>
> >>
> >> Could you explain a bit more why you think that merges violate  copyright?
> >> Thanks
> >> Will Johnson
> >
> > When you merge the wording of the GFDL requires that you preserve the
> > history (a really really bad choice of words). Can be done close
> > enough through a history merge but most users don't/can't do that.
> >
> >
> > --
> > geni
> >
> > ___
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> 
> Won't it satisfy the licence just to point to the other articles
> history in the edit summary?
> 
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

Well... You are welcome to file that. Unfortunately I am not an admin.
And also once his block expires he'd stop calling them merges. I really
don't think that would slow him down. He changed his tactic after his
6-month ban from fiction related articles expired.

   - White Cat

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 1:48 PM, geni  wrote:

> 2009/1/5 White Cat :
> > I already prepared the popcorn. Oi! Who deleted my popcorn?
> >>> Deletionists strike back! <<
> >
> >  - White Cat
>
> User:TNN meets the "persistently violating copyrights;" requirements
> of WP:BLOCK. Mostly because from time to time they have actually moved
> content from one article from another (the rest of the time you can
> nail them for persistently lying in edit summaries). Given the format
> of the mediawiki software and the GFDL it is pretty much impossible to
> do such merges without violating copyright.
>
> --
> geni
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

I don't know.
The use of AFDs to merely game the system can't be right. It isn't spelled
out as a violation of policy but WP:GAME and WP:POINT were written for that
purpose. I can delete each and every article on any topic of my choosing if
I make something like 500 afd nominations.

It is still gaming the system though. I am not convinced AFDs were done in a
fair environment. Votestacking and meatpuppetry needs to be investigated.

Thats not really true either as WP:DE exists for dealing with situations
like this. This isn't the first time someone has tried to pull up a stunt
like this.

Nothing is being merged though. Articles are converted to redirects.
WP:MERGE was designed for situations where you have a few short articles
that do not have the likelihood of growing. How ever like many policies and
guidelines even help pages like WP:MERGE was edited controversially.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Merging_and_moving_pages&diff=134536006&oldid=134535095
That
inclusion of FICT to the help page isn't even mentioned in the talk page.
FICT itself doesn't have consensus behind it. WP:FICT was significantly
altered by an elite minority to serve their needs.

The current deletion spree is not based on consensus. It started over the
small fry low traffic articles and had been escalating ever since. It
started with TV shows and then escalated to Video Games.

See, a problem people do not understand is that this is not about saving a
few pokemon articles "you could care less about". It is more of a concept
fork. What do we want wikipedia to be? I want that to be discussed. This
concept fork has been covered in great detail even by the mass media. The
dispute itself has gotten so notable that we have an article on it on
wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia

   - White Cat

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Ken Arromdee  wrote:

> He seems to be following the letter of the rules.  I'd say he's ignoring
> the
> spirit--except that obviously some people think deletionism is in the
> spirit of the rules too.  In fact, often the rules are made unclear so that
> different people can "agree" on them in the first place, which makes it
> hard
> to tell what the spirit of the rules ever was.
>
> I certainly think this behavior *shouldn't* be allowed, but it's hard to
> see
> how not to allow it without changing the rules.  The letter of the rules is
> badly broken:
> * The AFDs are discussed and approved outside the affected pages.  Some
> people
> see this as a feature.  (Mentioned in the amendment request preceding this)
> * Once the articles are removed, he benefits from status quo.  It's a lot
> harder to contest an AFD after the fact.
> * Making large numbers of basically similar changes makes it hard to
> contest
> all the changes at once.
> * A merge is not officially a deletion.  We really need to give up on these
> legal fictions.
>
> (Variations on the first three happened for spoiler warnings too.  This
> isn't
> coincidence.)
>
> Though despite all this, the Barrett v. Rosenthal RFA further down the page
> is pretty scary all on its own.
>
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Martijn Hoekstra]

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 8:21 PM, geni  wrote:
> 2009/1/5  :
>> <> geni...@gmail.com writes:
>>
>> Mostly  because from time to time they have actually moved
>> content from one article  from another (the rest of the time you can
>> nail them for persistently lying  in edit summaries). Given the format
>> of the mediawiki software and the GFDL  it is pretty much impossible to
>> do such merges without violating  copyright>>
>>
>> Could you explain a bit more why you think that merges violate  copyright?
>> Thanks
>> Will Johnson
>
> When you merge the wording of the GFDL requires that you preserve the
> history (a really really bad choice of words). Can be done close
> enough through a history merge but most users don't/can't do that.
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Won't it satisfy the licence just to point to the other articles
history in the edit summary?

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[geni]

2009/1/5  :
> < geni...@gmail.com writes:
>
> Mostly  because from time to time they have actually moved
> content from one article  from another (the rest of the time you can
> nail them for persistently lying  in edit summaries). Given the format
> of the mediawiki software and the GFDL  it is pretty much impossible to
> do such merges without violating  copyright>>
>
> Could you explain a bit more why you think that merges violate  copyright?
> Thanks
> Will Johnson

When you merge the wording of the GFDL requires that you preserve the
history (a really really bad choice of words). Can be done close
enough through a history merge but most users don't/can't do that.


-- 
geni

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[WJhonson]

<>
 
Could you explain a bit more why you think that merges violate  copyright?
Thanks
Will Johnson
 
 
 
**New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Ken Arromdee]

He seems to be following the letter of the rules.  I'd say he's ignoring the
spirit--except that obviously some people think deletionism is in the
spirit of the rules too.  In fact, often the rules are made unclear so that
different people can "agree" on them in the first place, which makes it hard
to tell what the spirit of the rules ever was.

I certainly think this behavior *shouldn't* be allowed, but it's hard to see
how not to allow it without changing the rules.  The letter of the rules is
badly broken:
* The AFDs are discussed and approved outside the affected pages.  Some people
see this as a feature.  (Mentioned in the amendment request preceding this)
* Once the articles are removed, he benefits from status quo.  It's a lot
harder to contest an AFD after the fact.
* Making large numbers of basically similar changes makes it hard to contest
all the changes at once.
* A merge is not officially a deletion.  We really need to give up on these
legal fictions.

(Variations on the first three happened for spoiler warnings too.  This isn't
coincidence.)

Though despite all this, the Barrett v. Rosenthal RFA further down the page
is pretty scary all on its own.


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Marc Riddell]

> http://ragesossscholar.blogspot.com/2009/01/will-stanton-usability-grant-stop.
> html
> 
"Wikipedia's occasionally expert-unfriendly culture that turns off those
with the most to contribute."

"Wikipedia culture that gives little priority (or even respect) to
activities focused on the community itself rather than the encyclopedia"

This sounds awfully familiar.

Marc Riddell


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[geni]

2009/1/5 White Cat :
> I already prepared the popcorn. Oi! Who deleted my popcorn?
>>> Deletionists strike back! <<
>
>  - White Cat

User:TNN meets the "persistently violating copyrights;" requirements
of WP:BLOCK. Mostly because from time to time they have actually moved
content from one article from another (the rest of the time you can
nail them for persistently lying in edit summaries). Given the format
of the mediawiki software and the GFDL it is pretty much impossible to
do such merges without violating copyright.

-- 
geni

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

I already prepared the popcorn. Oi! Who deleted my popcorn?
>> Deletionists strike back! <<

  - White Cat

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:46 AM, David Gerard  wrote:

> 2009/1/5 White Cat :
>
> > I hope everyone is okay with the mass purging of "unimportant" articles
> in
> > bulk quantities. Just wanted to point out the obvious. You can now return
> to
> > whatever you were doing.
>
>
>
> http://ragesossscholar.blogspot.com/2009/01/will-stanton-usability-grant-stop.html
>
> The community is actually *declining*, to a hard core of those who
> would fail a Turing test.
>
> The next trick is to stick around it longer than the usual 12-18 month
> contributor cycle and see what's left of the encyclopedia.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[David Gerard]

2009/1/5 White Cat :

> I hope everyone is okay with the mass purging of "unimportant" articles in
> bulk quantities. Just wanted to point out the obvious. You can now return to
> whatever you were doing.


http://ragesossscholar.blogspot.com/2009/01/will-stanton-usability-grant-stop.html

The community is actually *declining*, to a hard core of those who
would fail a Turing test.

The next trick is to stick around it longer than the usual 12-18 month
contributor cycle and see what's left of the encyclopedia.


- d.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[WJhonson]

<>
 
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFAR#Episodes_and_characters_3_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFAR#Episodes_and_characters_3) 
 
 
 
 
**New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[K. Peachey]

For those wanting to know what this is about have a look at:
[[Wikipedia:RFAR#Episodes and_characters 3]]

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

Oh and please go out of your way to completely disregard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Episodes_and_characters_3
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

I hope everyone is okay with the mass purging of "unimportant" articles in
bulk quantities. Just wanted to point out the obvious. You can now return to
whatever you were doing.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l