Re: [WikiEN-l] deletionism in popular culture
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > Ryan Delaney wrote: > > The main changes, as explained on [[WP:PWD]] are: blank pages should show > up > > as redlinks, blanked pages should not show up in search results, blanked > > pages must have noindex so they aren't caught by search engines. PWD > doesn't > > function otherwise: without these changes, it would be more confusing > than > > beneficial. > > > Can you point to any wikipedia, or even any wiki, where this system is > implemented? > > Charles > There are none of which I'm aware, though I only edit on en.wikipedia so I might not be the best person to ask. On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Ian Woollard wrote: > On 07/11/2009, Ryan Delaney wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 2:28 AM, Ian Woollard > wrote: > > > >> On 07/11/2009, Ryan Delaney wrote: > >> > That's usually a worthwhile suggestion. The reason that won't work > here, > >> > though, is that PWD requires edits to the software to work. In other > >> words, > >> > this is an all-or-nothing enterprise-- we'd probably have to get the > >> whole > >> > project behind the complete overhaul before anything could be done. > >> > Obviously, this is a major barrier to implementation. > >> > >> I don't see any changes to the software are necessary, just the > >> creation of some templates and some policy. What change is supposed to > >> be needed? > >> > >> > > The main changes, as explained on [[WP:PWD]] are: blank pages should show > up > > as redlinks, blanked pages should not show up in search results, blanked > > pages must have noindex so they aren't caught by search engines. PWD > doesn't > > function otherwise: without these changes, it would be more confusing > than > > beneficial. > > 'Blank pages' can be noindexed by using a blank page template, and > will not show up in search results in most cases because they are > blank. Redlinks you could deal with by having a bot fiddle with the > links: > > blzh blah [[deletedArticle (deleted)|deletedArticle]] blah blah > > This has the unfortunate side-effect that clicking on the redlink to > create the article will tend to create [[deletedArticle (delete)]] but > you could always bot-move it back if that got created and deal with > the links at the same time. > > Or you could just ignore red links for the time being since other > processes also fill them in, like wiktionary softlinks. > Hmm, this is interesting. I like the idea of using a noindex template. The idea with the bot altering the page names could be problematic in the event of edit wars over deletion though. The idea of the original PWD proposal, as I understand it, was that PWD would function for most deletions and AFD would be the a kind of new RFC category where people comment on contested deletions. That makes sense to me, since we will inevitably have contested deletions where the parties aren't mature enough to talk it out. If you are constantly changing the names of the pages, you will have to move them back and forth, and I don't know if that's going to be feasible. Still, these are interesting ideas... keep them coming. - causa sui ___ 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] deletionism in popular culture
On 07/11/2009, Ryan Delaney wrote: > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 2:28 AM, Ian Woollard wrote: > >> On 07/11/2009, Ryan Delaney wrote: >> > That's usually a worthwhile suggestion. The reason that won't work here, >> > though, is that PWD requires edits to the software to work. In other >> words, >> > this is an all-or-nothing enterprise-- we'd probably have to get the >> whole >> > project behind the complete overhaul before anything could be done. >> > Obviously, this is a major barrier to implementation. >> >> I don't see any changes to the software are necessary, just the >> creation of some templates and some policy. What change is supposed to >> be needed? >> >> > The main changes, as explained on [[WP:PWD]] are: blank pages should show up > as redlinks, blanked pages should not show up in search results, blanked > pages must have noindex so they aren't caught by search engines. PWD doesn't > function otherwise: without these changes, it would be more confusing than > beneficial. 'Blank pages' can be noindexed by using a blank page template, and will not show up in search results in most cases because they are blank. Redlinks you could deal with by having a bot fiddle with the links: blzh blah [[deletedArticle (deleted)|deletedArticle]] blah blah This has the unfortunate side-effect that clicking on the redlink to create the article will tend to create [[deletedArticle (delete)]] but you could always bot-move it back if that got created and deal with the links at the same time. Or you could just ignore red links for the time being since other processes also fill them in, like wiktionary softlinks. > - causa sui -- -Ian Woollard ___ 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] deletionism in popular culture
Ryan Delaney wrote: > The main changes, as explained on [[WP:PWD]] are: blank pages should show up > as redlinks, blanked pages should not show up in search results, blanked > pages must have noindex so they aren't caught by search engines. PWD doesn't > function otherwise: without these changes, it would be more confusing than > beneficial. > Can you point to any wikipedia, or even any wiki, where this system is implemented? Charles ___ 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] deletionism in popular culture
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 3:07 AM, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > Ian Woollard wrote: > > Yes, but some of those really bad articles will become good articles > > if you spend enough time on them. > > > > Deletion short-circuits that. > > > > In a perfect world, with perfect AFDs it wouldn't matter. In the real > > world, with real world AFDs it does. > > > Yes, but (I say) the solution to that is not to keep all deleted > material forever on the site. There are clearly people who feel that > this _is_ the solution, but I'm not one of them. It may be a weakness of > AfD that deletions do occur, not because the topic is unsuitable for the > encyclopedia (which, let us not forget, remains the main reason for > deleting an article), but because the article is not in great shape. But > the way to fix up that weakness is not permanent public storage of stuff > that really is mostly junk. > > I agree that keeping bad content on the site is not a good idea. Thankfully, PWD doesn't require that. PWD doesn't mean "don't ever delete anything". (If anything, it makes it easier to delete things that unambiguously need to go away.) What it does do is: (A) Makes deleted content available to non-admins, which is good because it gives us more eyes reviewing the propriety of deleted articles; (B) Removes the necessity to panic about being perfect at AFD and CSD because erroneous deletions are easily subjected to peer review and reversed, which should go a long way to reduce the instruction creep and policy wonkery at both of the aforementioned pages (which is already well beyond intolerable levels) ; (C) a bunch of other stuff you can read about on the PWD proposal page. The fundamental question that must be answered by critics of PWD is why deletion should be treated as a special category of editorial decision making. (I don't believe this question was ever answered when VFD was formed, but I'd love to do a historical study of how deletion process developed.) Consider that we don't require that an ad-hoc committee meet every time we make another unambiguous edit to an article-- we rely on discussion, consensus building, and dispute resolution. Nobody objects to this when it comes to every other kind of edit on Wikipedia, but for some mysterious reason, when it comes to deletion some people think the Wiki model is inappropriate. We disagree. Just like we purge bad, poorly written, poorly sourced content from articles by editing them, we can purge bad articles from the Wiki in exactly the same way. That's why we call it "Pure Wiki" deletion -- we believe the wiki model that has served us so well for content creation can serve us just as well for content removal and cleanup. That shouldn't be controversial or counter-intuitive: the massive success of the Wiki model in every other area should give us good reason to expect it to work here, too. - causa sui ___ 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] deletionism in popular culture
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 5:52 PM, stevertigo wrote: > Steve Bennett wrote: > >> Deletion is good because it totally dispenses with junk. > > Parsing... "Destruction = [qualitative superlative] because > [destruction] [completely destroys] [things that need destroying]." > > Please let us all pledge to henceforth refrain from employing circular > logic in our arguments. And likewise let us pledge to point and giggle > at these circulars whenever we have to see them. If everyone agreed that "junk" was synonymous with "things that need destroying", we wouldn't be having this discussion. Some people think that "junk" is synonymous with "things that should be stored indefinitely for the public to access". Steve ___ 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] deletionism in popular culture
Ian Woollard wrote: > Yes, but some of those really bad articles will become good articles > if you spend enough time on them. > > Deletion short-circuits that. > > In a perfect world, with perfect AFDs it wouldn't matter. In the real > world, with real world AFDs it does. > Yes, but (I say) the solution to that is not to keep all deleted material forever on the site. There are clearly people who feel that this _is_ the solution, but I'm not one of them. It may be a weakness of AfD that deletions do occur, not because the topic is unsuitable for the encyclopedia (which, let us not forget, remains the main reason for deleting an article), but because the article is not in great shape. But the way to fix up that weakness is not permanent public storage of stuff that really is mostly junk. Charles ___ 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] deletionism in popular culture
Steve Bennett wrote: > Deletion is good because it totally dispenses with junk. Parsing... "Destruction = [qualitative superlative] because [destruction] [completely destroys] [things that need destroying]." Please let us all pledge to henceforth refrain from employing circular logic in our arguments. And likewise let us pledge to point and giggle at these circulars whenever we have to see them. -Stevertigo "...and I thank his sword ___ 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] deletionism in popular culture
Yes, but some of those really bad articles will become good articles if you spend enough time on them. Deletion short-circuits that. In a perfect world, with perfect AFDs it wouldn't matter. In the real world, with real world AFDs it does. On 04/11/2009, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 6:41 AM, Ryan Delaney wrote: >> Well, now you've given me another guess: The problem with PWD is that it's >> wrong to have deleted material available for people to look at because >> that >> would encourage them to look at deleted content rather than undeleted >> material? > > (I haven't read the PWD proposal, but it seems self-explanatory.) > > Deletion is good because it totally dispenses with junk. Average > article quality goes up when we ditch bad articles. It prevents people > from spending time on really bad articles. Having deleted articles > readily available would interfere with all that. There are places on > the internet for all kinds of junk, regardless of quality or value. > Wikipedia is not one. > > Steve > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- -Ian Woollard ___ 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] deletionism in popular culture
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 6:41 AM, Ryan Delaney wrote: > Well, now you've given me another guess: The problem with PWD is that it's > wrong to have deleted material available for people to look at because that > would encourage them to look at deleted content rather than undeleted > material? (I haven't read the PWD proposal, but it seems self-explanatory.) Deletion is good because it totally dispenses with junk. Average article quality goes up when we ditch bad articles. It prevents people from spending time on really bad articles. Having deleted articles readily available would interfere with all that. There are places on the internet for all kinds of junk, regardless of quality or value. Wikipedia is not one. Steve ___ 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] deletionism in popular culture
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > I wasn't saying we shouldn't discuss deletion process: I think in fact > we should probably look at why PROD is underused. I think that having > the deleted articles off the site (unless you're an admin) does make > people not spend time looking at deleted material that has an intriguing > title but isn't worth reading, an activity that would probably involve a > great deal of duplicated effort. I simply disagree with (b) - it seems > like a proponent's view, and the history of the relevant project page > seems to indicate that most people lost interest in 2006 (when BLP began > to loom). > Well, now you've given me another guess: The problem with PWD is that it's wrong to have deleted material available for people to look at because that would encourage them to look at deleted content rather than undeleted material? You're right that the original proposal failed to achieve it's goals, but given that it is a good idea, that's no reason to abandon it. The issue here should be whether it's a good idea or not and why. - causa sui ___ 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] deletionism in popular culture
Ryan Delaney wrote: > > I'm still not seeing the connection, but I'll try one last time. It > sounds like you're saying that discussion of deletion process > distracts us from working on building new, better articles on topics > that we already have, and that we shouldn't worry too much about > deleted content because it probably wasn't any good anyway. I think > there's some logic in this, but it's still the case that (a) sometimes > we ought to take a step back and consider process from a birds-eye > view, or else it will develop chaotically as a massive cancerous > collection of short-term responses to short-term problems and (b) > there is no drawback to pure wiki deletion that we don't already > suffer from the existing system, and it has several considerable > advantages over the status quo. I wasn't saying we shouldn't discuss deletion process: I think in fact we should probably look at why PROD is underused. I think that having the deleted articles off the site (unless you're an admin) does make people not spend time looking at deleted material that has an intriguing title but isn't worth reading, an activity that would probably involve a great deal of duplicated effort. I simply disagree with (b) - it seems like a proponent's view, and the history of the relevant project page seems to indicate that most people lost interest in 2006 (when BLP began to loom). > > If you agree with B (and you ought to), then you ought to think that > pure wiki deletion is a good idea. Maybe you don't think it's a good > enough idea to invest the time and energy into getting it implemented > (A), but B is what's really important here-- if enough people > subscribe to B, it will find a way to get done. > Like I say, you seem to be arguing from a rather lonely perspective here. Cha ___ 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] deletionism in popular culture
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:07 AM, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > We now live on Wikipedia, I think, with a fuller consciousness of our > finite if very large human resources, and (at least as I see it) the > "pure wiki" approach is mainly a distraction from the mission "write the > encyclopedia". Hence my use of the term "rationalisation" for the > attitude that we should very much focus on the core mission. > > I'm still not seeing the connection, but I'll try one last time. It sounds like you're saying that discussion of deletion process distracts us from working on building new, better articles on topics that we already have, and that we shouldn't worry too much about deleted content because it probably wasn't any good anyway. I think there's some logic in this, but it's still the case that (a) sometimes we ought to take a step back and consider process from a birds-eye view, or else it will develop chaotically as a massive cancerous collection of short-term responses to short-term problems and (b) there is no drawback to pure wiki deletion that we don't already suffer from the existing system, and it has several considerable advantages over the status quo. If you agree with B (and you ought to), then you ought to think that pure wiki deletion is a good idea. Maybe you don't think it's a good enough idea to invest the time and energy into getting it implemented (A), but B is what's really important here-- if enough people subscribe to B, it will find a way to get done. - causa sui ___ 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] deletionism in popular culture
Ryan Delaney wrote > > This is coming into focus a bit, but how, specifically, do you think > this relates to pure wiki deletion? [[Wikipedia:Pure wiki deletion system]] says various things, including that it is unclear why deletion is not reversible. (I'd say that is clear enough.) But however you formulate the discussion about blanking pages versus deletion, what you end up talking about is various databases within the database. The current "solution" is roughly that there are a public database "articles for creation" that is held outside the main namespace, and a database of deleted pages (histories in some cases purged by the OverSight tool) accessible by admins. My comment really was that if we had the further "database" of some millions of "blanked" pages, most of which was admittedly junk, and some of which would certainly be at least as troubling for BLP reasons as the live pages considering that it might concern many thousands of people who are not "notable" and yet about whom we make postings available, we might be having the discussion the other way round: wouldn't it just be easier to concentrate on what we are good at, making encyclopedia articles on topics that can support them? We now live on Wikipedia, I think, with a fuller consciousness of our finite if very large human resources, and (at least as I see it) the "pure wiki" approach is mainly a distraction from the mission "write the encyclopedia". Hence my use of the term "rationalisation" for the attitude that we should very much focus on the core mission. Charles ___ 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] deletionism in popular culture
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > Ryan Delaney wrote: > > I'm having trouble following your meaning, I think because I'm not > > familiar with how you are using "rationalisation". Can you explain a > > bit more please? > > > Wiktionary meaning (3) for "rationalization" is > > "A reorganization of a company or organization in order to improve its > efficiency." > > Which of course is sometimes euphemistic. More detail in > [[rationalization (economics)]], which seems to me also to be more > tendentious in what it is saying. I was mainly thinking of the kind of > discussion where you try to draw the line between "bells and whistles" > and "core activities". > > Charles > > This is coming into focus a bit, but how, specifically, do you think this relates to pure wiki deletion? - causa sui ___ 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] deletionism in popular culture
Ryan Delaney wrote: > I'm having trouble following your meaning, I think because I'm not > familiar with how you are using "rationalisation". Can you explain a > bit more please? > Wiktionary meaning (3) for "rationalization" is "A reorganization of a company or organization in order to improve its efficiency." Which of course is sometimes euphemistic. More detail in [[rationalization (economics)]], which seems to me also to be more tendentious in what it is saying. I was mainly thinking of the kind of discussion where you try to draw the line between "bells and whistles" and "core activities". Charles ___ 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] deletionism in popular culture
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:32 AM, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > Ryan Delaney wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Samuel Klein > wrote: > > > >> Now that's a lovely perennial idea. There's no point in hard deleting > any > >> article save to protect private information in the history. You can > pure > >> wiki delete; or even pure wiki delete and protect the blank page; but > >> removing the work done from view of interested passers-by is wholly > >> unnecessary. > >> > >> > >> > > I haven't found any persuasive argument against it. Usually the objection > is > > "but then there would be edit wars over deletion!" > > > The main argument is rationalisation: if you ever thought that it was a > valid idea to rationalise the scope of the project at any point, you'd > probably start with the thought that with hundreds of thousands of > articles deleted every year and most of that material being at best > thoroughly marginal to what we are trying to do, then (you might argue > that) having it all around is on balance not really helpful. So against > that you can argue that WP doesn't need rationalisation of any kind: it > can just go on growing how it likes given the resources. People seem to > draw their own conclusions on this debate. Mine are based largely on the > kind of focus or lack of it you see in people who want to search through > those millions of deleted words, rather than anything else they could be > trawling through. > > Charles I'm having trouble following your meaning, I think because I'm not familiar with how you are using "rationalisation". Can you explain a bit more please? - causa sui ___ 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] deletionism in popular culture
Ryan Delaney wrote: > On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Samuel Klein wrote: > >> Now that's a lovely perennial idea. There's no point in hard deleting any >> article save to protect private information in the history. You can pure >> wiki delete; or even pure wiki delete and protect the blank page; but >> removing the work done from view of interested passers-by is wholly >> unnecessary. >> >> >> > I haven't found any persuasive argument against it. Usually the objection is > "but then there would be edit wars over deletion!" > The main argument is rationalisation: if you ever thought that it was a valid idea to rationalise the scope of the project at any point, you'd probably start with the thought that with hundreds of thousands of articles deleted every year and most of that material being at best thoroughly marginal to what we are trying to do, then (you might argue that) having it all around is on balance not really helpful. So against that you can argue that WP doesn't need rationalisation of any kind: it can just go on growing how it likes given the resources. People seem to draw their own conclusions on this debate. Mine are based largely on the kind of focus or lack of it you see in people who want to search through those millions of deleted words, rather than anything else they could be trawling through. Charles ___ 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] deletionism in popular culture
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Samuel Klein wrote: > > Now that's a lovely perennial idea. There's no point in hard deleting any > article save to protect private information in the history. You can pure > wiki delete; or even pure wiki delete and protect the blank page; but > removing the work done from view of interested passers-by is wholly > unnecessary. > > I haven't found any persuasive argument against it. Usually the objection is "but then there would be edit wars over deletion!" - causa sui ___ 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] deletionism in popular culture
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 11:46 AM, David Goodman wrote: > > I do not consider that trivial. The deletion of improvable articles > because the small number of participants at AfD who are interested > and willing to rescue them is one of the reasons for people losing the > interest in Wikipedia. Who after all actually wants to come to > articles for deletion, but those who want to delete articles. > > Good point. I've often thought something like 'jury duty' for newcomers, after your first few weeks editing but before you stop being flagged as a 'newb' by the site software, might involve a few days of sharing your common sense at AfD. Though I still like the idea of changing the name to Articles for Review, encouraging eveyryone who likes cleanup to hang out there, and turning AfD into the much faster-process group that figures out /how/ to properly delete articles that have no other option. [so anyone could close an AfR discussion, but only people with delete rights could close AfD; they'd have to know how to decide whether or not to delete talk pages, &c &c. ] Ryan Delaney opines: > I agree. Pure Wiki Deletion is the only permanent solution. Now that's a lovely perennial idea. There's no point in hard deleting any article save to protect private information in the history. You can pure wiki delete; or even pure wiki delete and protect the blank page; but removing the work done from view of interested passers-by is wholly unnecessary. SJ > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG > > > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Steve Bennett > wrote: > > > > > Ok, here's a hypothetical. Let's say out of any twenty given AfD's > > that close as "delete", it turns out we get one "wrong". Is that > > acceptable? Deletion is hardly the end of the world in itself... > > > > Steve > > > > ___ > > 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] deletionism in popular culture
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:46 AM, David Goodman wrote: > Come join the talk at deletion review if you think its so easy to > restore articles. People cant even se ethem to work on without asking > an administrator. (though there are some, including myself, who will > always userify for a good faith editor). > > I think it's more likely that of the 20, not 1, but 10 could be > rescued--and some have already been, in some cases by merging. Of the > contested afds, I think that's probably the proportion. since we keep > fewer than half of the contested ones, we are losing the potential for > 50 articles a day, 18,000 a year. > > I do not consider that trivial. The deletion of improvable articles > because the small number of participants at AfD who are interested > and willing to rescue them is one of the reasons for people losing the > interest in Wikipedia. Who after all actually wants to come to > articles for deletion, but those who want to delete articles. > > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG > > > > I agree. Pure Wiki Deletion is the only permanent solution. - causa sui ___ 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] deletionism in popular culture
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > I gave up. Eventually I came across a controversial topic that > particularly interested me, where I had the background to understand > the sources and where my research radically changed my mind. So I > started working on it, I even bought a pile of books about it (on all > sides of the controversy), and a major recent and very expensive > mainstream work on it was donated to me, and I became much more > vulnerable as a result, since I now had an opinion and a POV, based > on reading the sources, and I started asserting content based on the > most reliable of the sources, especially peer-reviewed secondary source. > > The information necessary for my major shift of POV is much more than > most editors could absorb with some light reading. There exist > secondary sources that cover the field that, if editors would trust > them, would make it easy, but they don't trust these sources, > even when published by independent, non-fringe publishers, since what > they say contradicts the easy positions of ignorance. After all, > doesn't everybody with a background in science know? Reliable > source guidelines, if followed, would address the problem, but are > useless against entrenched opinion, because editors will invent this > or that excuse for disregarding them, so that the article doesn't > fall into their view of undue weight. > > So ... I'm no longer a Wikipedia editor, I'm now working off-wiki, > with real knowledge and research in the field that interested me, > and, as well, on the kind of voluntary structure that I see as the > only way out of trap that Wikipedia has fallen into. It's much > easier, though, of course, it all takes time. I still have an > account, and the block will expire, and I'm not burning any bridges, > but once I realize that a wall definitely exists, I don't butt > my head against it. I walk around it or dig under it or climb over > it, if I actually want to get to the other side, or I do something else. > So rather than address the problems inherent in this narrative so as to retain editors, we have a "Bookshelf project" to recruit cannon fodder. Ec ___ 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] deletionism in popular culture
At 04:34 AM 10/8/2009, Ray Saintonge wrote: >Fixing an article involves a lot more work than deleting it. The firemen >who would do that are further discouraged by the crowd that is hurling >rocks from the rooftop. For a while, I would try to fix articles that I thought could be rescued, then I noticed that sometimes, too often, finding reliable source had no effect at all on the discussion, and, in spite of hours of work finding sources and thus improving the article, it would be deleted. Writing an article that meets the high standards of scrutiny that are often applied at AfD can be a lot of work. The wiki model was that, you know about a subject, you write an article, at least that was half of it. The other half was someone went to a library and created an insane number of half-assed articles that were sourced, all right, but written, too often, by someone who didn't understand the topic Ideally, these two streams would merge and articles that were good to someone who knows the subject would also be sourced, but if the article is deleted first, the process can't happen. The original wiki model didn't even contemplate deletion beyond what Sarsaparilla/Absidy/etc. called "Pure Wiki Deletion." Which is simply blanking, an ordinary editorial decision, leaving everyone free to see the article who wants to. I gave up. Eventually I came across a controversial topic that particularly interested me, where I had the background to understand the sources and where my research radically changed my mind. So I started working on it, I even bought a pile of books about it (on all sides of the controversy), and a major recent and very expensive mainstream work on it was donated to me, and I became much more vulnerable as a result, since I now had an opinion and a POV, based on reading the sources, and I started asserting content based on the most reliable of the sources, especially peer-reviewed secondary source. The information necessary for my major shift of POV is much more than most editors could absorb with some light reading. There exist secondary sources that cover the field that, if editors would trust them, would make it easy, but they don't trust these sources, even when published by independent, non-fringe publishers, since what they say contradicts the easy positions of ignorance. After all, doesn't everybody with a background in science know? Reliable source guidelines, if followed, would address the problem, but are useless against entrenched opinion, because editors will invent this or that excuse for disregarding them, so that the article doesn't fall into their view of undue weight. So ... I'm no longer a Wikipedia editor, I'm now working off-wiki, with real knowledge and research in the field that interested me, and, as well, on the kind of voluntary structure that I see as the only way out of trap that Wikipedia has fallen into. It's much easier, though, of course, it all takes time. I still have an account, and the block will expire, and I'm not burning any bridges, but once I realize that a wall definitely exists, I don't butt my head against it. I walk around it or dig under it or climb over it, if I actually want to get to the other side, or I do something else. ___ 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] deletionism in popular culture
David Goodman wrote: > Come join the talk at deletion review if you think its so easy to > restore articles. People cant even se ethem to work on without asking > an administrator. (though there are some, including myself, who will > always userify for a good faith editor). > > I think it's more likely that of the 20, not 1, but 10 could be > rescued--and some have already been, in some cases by merging. Of the > contested afds, I think that's probably the proportion. since we keep > fewer than half of the contested ones, we are losing the potential for > 50 articles a day, 18,000 a year. > > I do not consider that trivial. The deletion of improvable articles > because the small number of participants at AfD who are interested > and willing to rescue them is one of the reasons for people losing the > interest in Wikipedia. Who after all actually wants to come to > articles for deletion, but those who want to delete articles. > > Fixing an article involves a lot more work than deleting it. The firemen who would do that are further discouraged by the crowd that is hurling rocks from the rooftop. An editor may very well have the reference material at his fingertips, but it could take him a long time at solid work to bring the article into shape. On top of that he will likely also need to spend time defending his resuscitation of the article. The ones who are really able to do this are quickly discouraged by a confrontational atmosphere. Rampant deletion makes Wikipedia less reliable because it leaves capable people unwilling to make needed corrections because they want top avaid fights. Ec ___ 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] deletionism in popular culture
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Charles Matthews wrote: Gwern Branwen wrote: >Charles Matthews wrote Counterfactually, suppose you had a team of "universal" researchers you could assign to work on articles. What relative weight would you give to various types of work? I realize it isn't one of your options, but if I really had such a crack team? I'd dispatch them to AfD. Oh, but it was meant to be a sub-option of "(d) researching for articles where the initial submission was clearly under-researched". Because the discussion is meant to be about rescuable articles. And if the topic is just nonsense, you can't rescue it with refs. It seems clearly wrong to wait for the AfD nomination before upgrading, so this is the broad form of class of articles that we are thinking about here. Oh. OK, then, I'm fine with it being '(d)' if you are. All the other areas are ones where effort would be repaid with no multipliers. In a way, if an article hasn't been created on an old topic yet (your red links, your topic lists), then that alone shows it isn't important. Likewise, if a longstanding article needs work, then doesn't its longstandingness show that it isn't apparently all *that* awful because someone would've fixed it up if it was so bad and they cared about it? Tell me this isn't true. No, really, encyclopedias do not consist of "important" topics only. Shh - don't tell the deletionists that! And in fact being comprehensive is our strongest suit anyway. (And don't tell me there are no important geographical articles we're missing, because that is definitely false.) The article that gets of the order of a few thousand hits a year may not look like much to a traffic snob. The point I would like to make is that 50,000 of those make up a huge total number of hits. I would say, as a general approximation over more than 3 million articles, my assertions are more true than false. Important articles, with lots of traffic, will tend to fix up important issues (with enough eyes...); that's the wiki model. Worse is Better. Nobody will think better of Wikipedia if some old article gets a dozen references and some tags removed. But the editors of an article *will* remember it if an angel swooped in and saved their article and laid the groundwork for improvements. Depends on your priorities. It being all about editors and not at all about readers is not what I believe, certainly. Charles If you care about the latter, you will prioritize the former. Which came first, the editor or the reader? Readers go wherever Google & other readers tell them to go, and that's where maintained content is. How do you get maintained content? Editors. Take care of the editors, and the readers will follow. Same ultimate goal (the point of the wiki is to be *used* after all, not play nomic), but very different emphasis in the means. -- gwern signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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] deletionism in popular culture
David Goodman wrote: > In reality, we have actual editors, with their own interests, and it > is very difficult to get them to work on anything but what they want > to work on, especially for things that need a serious referencing > effort beyond the googles. Most of them do have access to a library > with at least some books and some commercial databases, but it's > proven almost impossible to persuade them to use anything beyond arm's > reach--or to even use what material their local library has put within > arms reach to its community. > > Many of the topics not presently included are very important--I came > here primarily to work on some of them, before I got diverted to > immediate rescues--and now just defending articles long enough to let > people rescue them. Well, to answer my own question, I would give priority to the intersection of (a) and (b): popular redlinks that have articles in other reference works. And I think that means we are not disagreeing so very much here. Charles ___ 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] deletionism in popular culture
In reality, we have actual editors, with their own interests, and it is very difficult to get them to work on anything but what they want to work on, especially for things that need a serious referencing effort beyond the googles. Most of them do have access to a library with at least some books and some commercial databases, but it's proven almost impossible to persuade them to use anything beyond arm's reach--or to even use what material their local library has put within arms reach to its community. Many of the topics not presently included are very important--I came here primarily to work on some of them, before I got diverted to immediate rescues--and now just defending articles long enough to let people rescue them. If prospective deletors did follow WP:BEFORE, we could free up the half-dozen or so people who now mainly do fixes on articles that should have been improved, rather than nominated for deletion, but this is many fewer people than are needed The only effective way to get these topics worked on is to attract users who want to work on them. Some of the other language Wikipedias seem to have been more successful in this regard. Perhaps they have a friendlier attitude towards article writers and a more mature environment, or perhaps article writers in those communities are more willing to write in a way that does not display ownership and arouse hostility from other editors. Discouraging the people who want to work on popular culture will just discourage those who might develop into editors on other topics also. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Charles Matthews wrote: > Gwern Branwen wrote: > > >Charles Matthews wrote >>> Counterfactually, suppose you had a team of "universal" researchers you >>> could assign to work on articles. What relative weight would you give to >>> various types of work? > >> >> I realize it isn't one of your options, but if I really had such a >> crack team? I'd dispatch them to AfD. > Oh, but it was meant to be a sub-option of "(d) researching for articles > where the initial submission was clearly under-researched". Because the > discussion is meant to be about rescuable articles. And if the topic is > just nonsense, you can't rescue it with refs. It seems clearly wrong to > wait for the AfD nomination before upgrading, so this is the broad form > of class of articles that we are thinking about here. >> >> All the other areas are ones where effort would be repaid with no >> multipliers. In a way, if an article hasn't been created on an old >> topic yet (your red links, your topic lists), then that alone shows it >> isn't important. Likewise, if a longstanding article needs work, then >> doesn't its longstandingness show that it isn't apparently all *that* >> awful because someone would've fixed it up if it was so bad and they >> cared about it? > Tell me this isn't true. No, really, encyclopedias do not consist of > "important" topics only. And in fact being comprehensive is our > strongest suit anyway. (And don't tell me there are no important > geographical articles we're missing, because that is definitely false.) > > The article that gets of the order of a few thousand hits a year may not > look like much to a traffic snob. The point I would like to make is that > 50,000 of those make up a huge total number of hits. >> Worse is Better. Nobody will think better of Wikipedia if some old >> article gets a dozen references and some tags removed. But the editors >> of an article *will* remember it if an angel swooped in and saved >> their article and laid the groundwork for improvements. >> > Depends on your priorities. It being all about editors and not at all > about readers is not what I believe, certainly. > > Charles > > > > > ___ > 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] deletionism in popular culture
Gwern Branwen wrote: >Charles Matthews wrote >> Counterfactually, suppose you had a team of "universal" researchers you >> could assign to work on articles. What relative weight would you give to >> various types of work? > > I realize it isn't one of your options, but if I really had such a > crack team? I'd dispatch them to AfD. Oh, but it was meant to be a sub-option of "(d) researching for articles where the initial submission was clearly under-researched". Because the discussion is meant to be about rescuable articles. And if the topic is just nonsense, you can't rescue it with refs. It seems clearly wrong to wait for the AfD nomination before upgrading, so this is the broad form of class of articles that we are thinking about here. > > All the other areas are ones where effort would be repaid with no > multipliers. In a way, if an article hasn't been created on an old > topic yet (your red links, your topic lists), then that alone shows it > isn't important. Likewise, if a longstanding article needs work, then > doesn't its longstandingness show that it isn't apparently all *that* > awful because someone would've fixed it up if it was so bad and they > cared about it? Tell me this isn't true. No, really, encyclopedias do not consist of "important" topics only. And in fact being comprehensive is our strongest suit anyway. (And don't tell me there are no important geographical articles we're missing, because that is definitely false.) The article that gets of the order of a few thousand hits a year may not look like much to a traffic snob. The point I would like to make is that 50,000 of those make up a huge total number of hits. > Worse is Better. Nobody will think better of Wikipedia if some old > article gets a dozen references and some tags removed. But the editors > of an article *will* remember it if an angel swooped in and saved > their article and laid the groundwork for improvements. > Depends on your priorities. It being all about editors and not at all about readers is not what I believe, certainly. Charles ___ 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] deletionism in popular culture
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Charles Matthews wrote: David Goodman wrote: The deletion of improvable articles because the small number of participants at AfD who are interested and willing to rescue them is one of the reasons for people losing the interest in Wikipedia. Counterfactually, suppose you had a team of "universal" researchers you could assign to work on articles. What relative weight would you give to various types of work? Out of these, (a) filling in popular redlinks, (b) working over topic lists from other reference works, (c) fact-checking and referencing long-standing articles on the site that really are not shaping up, (d) researching for articles where the initial submission was clearly under-researched, which seem to you most important factors in developing the site as a whole? Which, for example, are going to do most to cure systemic bias? Which are going to help our reputation in the academic world? Which are going to do most for general reliability? And which (your point) could have the most impact on the community? I kind of feel most thoughtful people long-term on the site have voted with their feet on these issues. It would be surprising, of course, if self-assignment of tasks also corresponded to any particular person's view of the correct allocation of priorities. (Only one of the 20 items culled from AfD has any historical content, the foolish [[shield-mate]], only one takes us outside the Anglosphere to the 90% of the world's population who don't think in English, and so on. You may well be right that something could be salvaged in some cases by good research. Which is why I'd like to see the "cost" of diverting people onto such work as part of the assessment.) Charles I realize it isn't one of your options, but if I really had such a crack team? I'd dispatch them to AfD. A crack team can only do so much, and is limited. But if each member can be responsible for making an editor's experience better, for being the cause of an editor staying and not leaving in a huff because some people unfamiliar with his pet subject didn't like the few sources he had thrown together, then that's a big multiplier. AfD is exactly the area where a crack researcher can zoom over, see what 'looks' valid yet not very good, and drop some 5000lb bombs of references and citations down onto the delete votes. All the other areas are ones where effort would be repaid with no multipliers. In a way, if an article hasn't been created on an old topic yet (your red links, your topic lists), then that alone shows it isn't important. Likewise, if a longstanding article needs work, then doesn't its longstandingness show that it isn't apparently all *that* awful because someone would've fixed it up if it was so bad and they cared about it? Worse is Better. Nobody will think better of Wikipedia if some old article gets a dozen references and some tags removed. But the editors of an article *will* remember it if an angel swooped in and saved their article and laid the groundwork for improvements. -- gwern signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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] deletionism in popular culture
David Goodman wrote: > The deletion of improvable articles > because the small number of participants at AfD who are interested > and willing to rescue them is one of the reasons for people losing the > interest in Wikipedia. Counterfactually, suppose you had a team of "universal" researchers you could assign to work on articles. What relative weight would you give to various types of work? Out of these, (a) filling in popular redlinks, (b) working over topic lists from other reference works, (c) fact-checking and referencing long-standing articles on the site that really are not shaping up, (d) researching for articles where the initial submission was clearly under-researched, which seem to you most important factors in developing the site as a whole? Which, for example, are going to do most to cure systemic bias? Which are going to help our reputation in the academic world? Which are going to do most for general reliability? And which (your point) could have the most impact on the community? I kind of feel most thoughtful people long-term on the site have voted with their feet on these issues. It would be surprising, of course, if self-assignment of tasks also corresponded to any particular person's view of the correct allocation of priorities. (Only one of the 20 items culled from AfD has any historical content, the foolish [[shield-mate]], only one takes us outside the Anglosphere to the 90% of the world's population who don't think in English, and so on. You may well be right that something could be salvaged in some cases by good research. Which is why I'd like to see the "cost" of diverting people onto such work as part of the assessment.) Charles ___ 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] deletionism in popular culture
Come join the talk at deletion review if you think its so easy to restore articles. People cant even se ethem to work on without asking an administrator. (though there are some, including myself, who will always userify for a good faith editor). I think it's more likely that of the 20, not 1, but 10 could be rescued--and some have already been, in some cases by merging. Of the contested afds, I think that's probably the proportion. since we keep fewer than half of the contested ones, we are losing the potential for 50 articles a day, 18,000 a year. I do not consider that trivial. The deletion of improvable articles because the small number of participants at AfD who are interested and willing to rescue them is one of the reasons for people losing the interest in Wikipedia. Who after all actually wants to come to articles for deletion, but those who want to delete articles. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > > Ok, here's a hypothetical. Let's say out of any twenty given AfD's > that close as "delete", it turns out we get one "wrong". Is that > acceptable? Deletion is hardly the end of the world in itself... > > Steve > > ___ > 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] deletionism in popular culture
Kudos, Steve, for a fantastic thread title. Laughed so hard I nearly spilled my coffee. :) -Lise -- http://durova.blogspot.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] deletionism in popular culture
On 10/3/09, Gwern Branwen wrote: > Actually, there is one in there that strikes me as valid: the shield-mate > one. I know I've read about the idea before in multiple contexts, and > there's the obvious historical example of the Sacred Band. I don't know if > it's *correct*, and it looks like no one has ventured into academia for some > sources so deletion is likely, but that's far from a clear case. Ok, here's a hypothetical. Let's say out of any twenty given AfD's that close as "delete", it turns out we get one "wrong". Is that acceptable? Deletion is hardly the end of the world in itself... Steve ___ 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] deletionism in popular culture
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Steve Summit wrote: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6250515/Wikipedia-20-articles-earmarked-for-deletion.html When a friend forwarded this I assumed it was going to be a depressing read, filled with useful gems which had been lost due to the cruel symbiosis between processmongering and deletionism, but you know, in these 20 cases at least, I think we got it right. Actually, there is one in there that strikes me as valid: the shield-mate one. I know I've read about the idea before in multiple contexts, and there's the obvious historical example of the Sacred Band. I don't know if it's *correct*, and it looks like no one has ventured into academia for some sources so deletion is likely, but that's far from a clear case. -- gwern signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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] deletionism in popular culture
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6250515/Wikipedia-20-articles-earmarked-for-deletion.html When a friend forwarded this I assumed it was going to be a depressing read, filled with useful gems which had been lost due to the cruel symbiosis between processmongering and deletionism, but you know, in these 20 cases at least, I think we got it right. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
