Sage Ross wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Charles > Matthews<charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/aug/12/wikipedia-deletionist-inclusionist >> >> Much familiar argument from threads here. Some of the usual suspects >> commenting, and everyone putting in their two cents. Somewhere in the >> middle is a debate struggling to get out: is the volume of reversions >> indicative of good gatekeeping (poor edits to popular and well-developed >> articles have little chance of sticking), or bad gatekeeping >> (established editors assert ownership)? Stats from 2007 and 2009 show a >> step-change of some sort, as we know, but don't really prove that there >> is a current trend (we could be going sideways). >> >> Charles >> > > Regarding the familiar arguments related to this... should the > Signpost be a venue for discussing thing stuff? See: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#.22Wikipedia_enters_a_new_chapter.22 > I think you're right to suspect that this would be hard to cover _properly_ in the Signpost's usual and gratefully concise style. Just picking out the different strands of "deletionism" looks like several pages of philosophy tutorial to me. Stats are interesting, but stats on reversions without a proper indication of their distribution (are they largely in the top 1000 articles by readers?) seem fairly inconclusive.
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
