subject: [WikiEN-l] Turn off article creation AND deletion.

body:
On 12/10/05, stevertigo <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Brilliant. Really, really fucking brilliant!
> I love it when people express radical and free ideas
> which wont ever be tried unless by undemocratic
> decree.
>
> The only problem with it is that AFD people are are
> there precisely because they are neither good article
> progenitors nor good article editors. That's why we
> call them "Deletionists" --because that's just what
> they do. I attach no value judgement to the name of
> "Deletionist" other than any pre-concieved social
> prejudice that values creation over destruction.
>
> Ergo, Creativity needs a mirror in Destruction
> --taking away such a major function will mean that
> those who have over time been driven to AFD (whatever
> meaning one may give to "driven") will take their
> skills of destruction to articles -- destructive
> reverts, rollbacks, cutting etc.
>
> All of which can be good--dont get me wrong--and
> certainly putting doing these in balance is the best
> kind of approach. But as they say in Go, a masterful
> player will see the difference between a good move and
> a bad one as like 'the difference between a feather
> and a cinder block.' Not known for their
> feather-sensitive sublety --Deletionists need
> somewhere to go to do what it is they do.
>
> Stevertigo

Blameing the deletionists. Not logical.

133 Inclusionists
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians/Members

94 Deletionists

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Deletionist_Wikipedians

Deletion requires a 2/3s majority. There is no logical way that the
deletionists should be able to win against the inclusionists.

--
geni


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] (was Turn off	article creation AND deletion.)

body:
Carbonite wrote:

> I'm starting to like where this proposal is going. I have some suggestions
> that I'd like to throw out for feedback:
> - AfD would be turned off for the first two weeks of the month (1st -14th).
> - The second week of the month (8th-14th), all mainspace article creation
> would be turned off.
> - Starting on the 15th, Wikipedia would return to operating as usual (for
> the rest of the month).
> I believe that the result of these changes would be to create a cycle in
> which more articles were developed into "real" articles rather than
> remaining substandard. It also cuts AfD's status to part-time. There
> probably would be a flood of nomination on the 15th of each month, but by
> this point every article would have had at least one full week to improve
> and likely closer to two weeks.

I like it. People insist on using AFD as an editorial tool ... let's go
with that and really treat it as one.

Add to above: all AFDs to run fourteen days, not five.

- d.


from_name: Blackcap

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Separate namespace for Deletions and other achives?

body:
On 12/10/05, M. Creidieki Crouch <creidieki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That sounded really good at first thought, but if the entire namespace
> is protected, nonadmins wouldn't be able to archive pages.

Maybe have the page automatically protected after the first save?


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Proposal: Article Improvement Weeks! (was Turn off
	article creation AND deletion.)

body:
Matt Brown wrote:
> On 12/10/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:

>>([[WT:AUM]] is currently trying to form a local consensus that supersedes computer
>>science with voting, so it must be a good idea.)

> More accurately, they can see the positive effects of getting creative
> with templates, while the negative effects are invisible on the small
> scale and thus easy to ignore.

Yep.

> The discussion we should be having is one of "Should we extend
> template syntax in order to allow more clever things to be done in a
> sensible, maintainable way that won't impact system performance?"

Or "Stupid Mediawiki Tricks are l33t and cool. But if you can develop
like that, please go hack on Mediawiki itself so this sort of thing
doesn't trash our database and our cache hit ratio kthx."

> Ugly template hacks to do logic and programs are not really the way to
> go there.

[[Uncyclopedia:Template:Wotd]]

(Confession: I just put this on Uncyclopedia's main page. Now to see if
JasonR rips my throat out with a spork ...)

- d.


body:
stevertigo wrote:

> Brilliant. Really, really fucking brilliant!
> I love it when people express radical and free ideas
> which wont ever be tried unless by undemocratic
> decree.

Democracy is one of those things Wikipedia isn't, and voting remains
stupid as well as evil. Anything that's ever been prematurely forced
through to a poll was probably a bad idea. If it wasn't a bad idea,
decree was probably the right way to do it.

- d.


body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

> That is clearly against policy and such people should simply be
> ignored. Articles can only be deleted if they were substantially
> similar to deleted work. Perhaps it would help if we were to require
> specification of whether someone was voting based on the article
> subject or the article state?

Ignoring policy is already de rigeur on AFD. Compare voting and
nomination patterns on AFD to [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy]]. The actual
policy on AFD is "Because we feel like it." This is another reason to
nuke from orbit and see if the cockroaches can do deletion better.

- d.


body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

> Another one of the things I pride myself on is being careful when it
> comes to creation. I may not create much articles, but the ones I do
> make NEVER face deletion because I make sure they indicate notability
> and have sufficient reliable references. AFD wouldn't even be as
> overcrowded as it is now if everyone did the same.

Any thoughts on my preloaded new article template idea? It's just
wikitext, so regulars could do what they liked, but newbies will see a
clear indication of what we expect in an article.

- d.


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Adrenalin

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Why MO.wikipedia. - Moldovan,
	are written in cyrillic ?

body:
On 12/10/05, V. Ivanov <amikeco at gmail.com> wrote:
> Stop talking nonsense about my country. ;) Wikipedia is a neutral
> place, it's not a place for nationalist extremists like you.
>
> Sl.

Me, a nationalist extremist ? Um ?
I just want to see the real script of my language on mo., is that
nationalistic extremism ?
Let's say what tomorrow the en.wikipedia would be in japanese script,
because of some ppl what write english language using japanese
symbols, and someone will call to revert it back to the real script,
latin, would he be a nationalist extremist too ?

The majority of moldovian speakers use latin script to write the
moldovian language, so why couldn't we ask mo.wikipedia to be in latin
script too ?

This topic indeed get too big, any Wikipedia Administrator, please ?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Why Turn of AFD?

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

> You seem to want to turn off AFD because you think the central page
> sparks too much poisonous feelings. I'm saying that turning off AFD,
> or using an alternative tagging method like the one speedy uses now
> allows for articles that should be deleted to slip through the net.
> Especially when they have 2 weeks or a month to be manipulated.

So what? They can be retagged later. If you want to present a polished
face to the world, a deletion rampage isn't going to do the job.

- d.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Evan Prodromou

subject: [Wikitech-l] Hooking

body:
On Fri, 2005-09-12 at 16:52 -0500, Aron Rubin wrote:

> Why are there so few hooks in MediaWiki? Is this part of an effort to be
> lean or have you not gotten around to it?

Mostly haven't gotten around to it.

If you have some ideas for hooks, please let me know.

~Evan


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Improve AFD - require rationales (2-step process)

body:
On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> A lot of the poisonous feelings on AFD seems to come from sheep voting
> and people voting without providing rationales. Perhaps we should
> improve the debate-percentage and require people to provide
> rationales.
>
> I suggest a two step process:
> 1) The first 24 or 48 hours people submit rationales for or against deletion.
> 2) After that people can vote on which of these they support.
> Similar to a finding of the facts.

Sort of.  But you don't need a reason to keep an article.  We keep an
article unless there is a consensus to delete it.  Of course it would
be silly not to submit rationales for keeping if one has to compete
with rationales to delete, but really it's a bit like criminal law.
If the prosecution fails to present a case, the defence can spend all
day on Blackpool Beach with a bucket and spade and a knotted hanky on
its head, and the defendant is still acquitted.


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
One of my long-standing beefs with the deletion process is that people
use it as cleanup, and when you call them on it, they say "But doing
it this way gets results under the threat of deletion, while if you
list something on cleanup, nothing ever gets done."

There is a fine line between an acceptable article and a substandard one.
If no one is willing to improve something that is substandard, then
why should we keep it around?

And then people turn round and say that if anything's ever deleted
through AFD, the topic is never again allowed to exist, even if the
reason for deletion was that it was a crap article that needed
cleanup.

That is clearly against policy and such people should simply be
ignored. Articles can only be deleted if they were substantially
similar to deleted work. Perhaps it would help if we were to require
specification of whether someone was voting based on the article
subject or the article state?

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Why Turn of AFD?

body:
On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm saying that turning off AFD,
> or using an alternative tagging method like the one speedy uses now
> allows for articles that should be deleted to slip through the net.
> Especially when they have 2 weeks or a month to be manipulated.
>

Umm, you're saying that giving an article that "should be deleted"
might, given time, actually improve to the point where it cannot be
deleted?  Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?

If it *is* what you're saying, then obviously that's wrong!  We cannot
have people improving articles that someone else thinks should exist!
That will never do!  :)


body:
On 12/10/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/10/05, stevertigo <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Brilliant. Really, really fucking brilliant!
> > I love it when people express radical and free ideas
> > which wont ever be tried unless by undemocratic
> > decree.
> >
> > The only problem with it is that AFD people are are
> > there precisely because they are neither good article
> > progenitors nor good article editors. That's why we
> > call them "Deletionists" --because that's just what
> > they do. I attach no value judgement to the name of
> > "Deletionist" other than any pre-concieved social
> > prejudice that values creation over destruction.
> >
> > Ergo, Creativity needs a mirror in Destruction
> > --taking away such a major function will mean that
> > those who have over time been driven to AFD (whatever
> > meaning one may give to "driven") will take their
> > skills of destruction to articles -- destructive
> > reverts, rollbacks, cutting etc.
> >
> > All of which can be good--dont get me wrong--and
> > certainly putting doing these in balance is the best
> > kind of approach. But as they say in Go, a masterful
> > player will see the difference between a good move and
> > a bad one as like 'the difference between a feather
> > and a cinder block.' Not known for their
> > feather-sensitive sublety --Deletionists need
> > somewhere to go to do what it is they do.
> >
> > Stevertigo
>
> Blameing the deletionists. Not logical.
>
> 133 Inclusionists
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians/Members
>
> 94 Deletionists
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Deletionist_Wikipedians
>
> Deletion requires a 2/3s majority. There is no logical way that the
> deletionists should be able to win against the inclusionists.
>
Not all people who subscribe to either view are in those associations.
Anyway. No one can "win" because there's no contest, at least there
shouldn't be.

And saying that people on AFD "are there precisely because they are
neither good article progenitors nor good article editors." is
something I consider inflammatory. I visit AFD on a regular basis
myself, and while I suck at article creation by my own admission, I
think I'm a pretty good editor. What you did here was a sweeping
generalization with nothing to back it up.

Another one of the things I pride myself on is being careful when it
comes to creation. I may not create much articles, but the ones I do
make NEVER face deletion because I make sure they indicate notability
and have sufficient reliable references. AFD wouldn't even be as
overcrowded as it is now if everyone did the same.

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Why Turn of AFD?

body:
On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Exactly how is keeping deletable stuff around for 2 weeks or longer a
> good thing? The longer you leave it the easier it is for people to
> muck up and let it slip through.

What do you mean "muck up"?  You mean they might change their minds
and decide not to delete it after all?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Why Turn of AFD?

body:
> > Ah, I see what you mean now, you're talking about speedy deletion
> > nominations.  Can't these be put on [[Wikipedia:Speedy deletions]] for
> > a central location?  I don't really see what this has to do with AfD,
> > anyway.
> >
> > I'm saying that listing articles on a central page rather than tagging
> > and categorizing them avoid people from removing tags which shouldn't
> > be removed.
>
> And I don't see what that has to do with AFD.  When we turn off AFD,
> we turn off tagging articles under AFD too.
>
> Anthony

You seem to want to turn off AFD because you think the central page
sparks too much poisonous feelings. I'm saying that turning off AFD,
or using an alternative tagging method like the one speedy uses now
allows for articles that should be deleted to slip through the net.
Especially when they have 2 weeks or a month to be manipulated.

Mgm


body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

>>Any thoughts on my preloaded new article template idea? It's just
>>wikitext, so regulars could do what they liked, but newbies will see a
>>clear indication of what we expect in an article.

> What do they look like at the moment. I'd like to take a look.

At the moment, starting an article or following a redlink gives you an
edit box with nothing in it. My proposal is in this message:
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-December/034414.html
The version in that is just off the top of my head and could do with
tweaking.

- d.


body:
Keith Old wrote:

> I think that the idea is worth pursuing with one minor suggestion that
> external links be changed to external references.
> Links should be added only if the site has been used as a source in
> preparing the articles or if they provide a valuable resource for the reader
> to find out more about the topic.

True. They'll probably list relevant home pages anyway.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Turn off AfD

body:
On 12/10/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>
> > I think Mark has an excellent point here. Some of the people
> > supporting AFD being turned off seem to think that. Others just want
> > to get rid of any poisonous feelings.
> > I think deletion policy should provide to deleting or shutting off AFD itself.
> > Don't delete an article if it is a vandal target yet a valid article
> > topic. If it can be improved, do so and don't delete it. We'd be
> > deleting stuff like "George W. Bush" and "GNAA" on a regular basis for
> > the wrong reasons.
> > If something is wrong with AFD, then those exact problems need to be
> > found and addressed. Shutting off AFD is a cop out.
>
>
> I don't think so. I think it's bad enough that just dynamiting the
> damned thing can't be worse than it is now. We do need a deletion
> mechanism, but we don't need it more than we need not to have a
> festering pit of bad faith.
>
>
> - d.
>
So address the bad faith. The bad faith is coming from users, real
people, not from the page. Now if you were to delete the people... it
might actually have a noticeable effect.

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Why Turn of AFD?

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

> Why delete an entire process to deal with user's personal actions and
> feelings? Going on a process deactivation rampage isn't going to do
> the job.

Because all process is instruction creep until proven otherwise, and can
still become it. You realise of course that the process of actually
changing deletion policy is utterly bogged down because no-one trusts
anyone else's suggestions to be in good faith.

"user's personal actions and feelings" because the process has an
atmosphere of assumption of bad faith. A deletion policy is a good
thing; this one sucks by its results - driving knowledgeable people off
Wikipedia, assumption of bad faith to all outsiders to the deletion
process, unnecessary forking from Wikipedia (Comixpedia), etc.

> Exactly how is keeping deletable stuff around for 2 weeks or longer a
> good thing? The longer you leave it the easier it is for people to
> muck up and let it slip through. I'm not talking about a deletion
> rampage, I'm talking about stuff that everyone already agrees on
> should be deleted.

Did you see Tony Sidaway's email giving the actual numbers? AFD creates
angst way out of proportion to its actual effects on the article base.

> Two, we need to place to discuss the stuff before
> deleting possibly contentious articles. Turning it off will spark
> deletions regular users didn't have a say in. It takes away the place
> it should be discussed at.

If you want to delete something, what's wrong with taking long enough to
get it right? Five days is not enough. People who can't be fucked to
tell the article creator are manifestly not taking sufficient care, but
try adding that to deletion policy and see how far you get.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Why Turn of AFD?

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:

>>I'm saying that turning off AFD,
>>or using an alternative tagging method like the one speedy uses now
>>allows for articles that should be deleted to slip through the net.
>>Especially when they have 2 weeks or a month to be manipulated.

> Umm, you're saying that giving an article that "should be deleted"
> might, given time, actually improve to the point where it cannot be
> deleted?  Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?
> If it *is* what you're saying, then obviously that's wrong!  We cannot
> have people improving articles that someone else thinks should exist!
> That will never do!  :)

Indeed. MGM, you appear to be approaching article deletion as a win/lose
process, where keeping an article constitutes losing.

- d.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Plots of article creations,
	deletions and undeletions on the English Wikipedia

body:
On 12/9/05, ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason <avarab at gmail.com> wrote:
> I was playing with some more plotting and made a plot of article
> creations, deletions and undeletions on the English Wikipedia, enjoy:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Article_creations.2C_deletions_and_undeletions

It's lovely, but could you produce one in, say, yellow and blue, or
black and light gray?  I'm one of the ten percent of men who are color
blind, and I cannot easily detect the difference between the two hues
you have used.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Turn off AfD

body:
On 12/10/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 12/10/05, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
> > Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> >
> > >How do you deal with crap everyone agrees should be deleted, but is
> > >not actually speediable?  Here's a thought - make it speediable!
> > >
> > >Anthony
> > >
> > >
> > Are you kidding? A year ago, the paranoid community rejected two
> > different measures for something *in between* speedy deletion and AFD
> > (both involved admin discretion but not full reliance on it). What makes
> > you think anything will have changed this year?
>
> I *don't* think anything will have changed.  I said was talking about
> what we *should* do, not what's going to happen.  If everyone agrees
> something should be deleted, we should delete it, period.  Running it
> through some AFD process first is not smart.

And how are you going to determine whether everyone agrees? Without a
central place, the only way to find out if a discussion is going is by
running across it on RC or in a watchlist, which you could miss if you
happen to not be online when it happens.
>
> That said, if we turned off AFD, I think the number of speediable
> categories would quickly grow.
>
> Plus, in my opinion, Jimbo has set us into a new era of
> experimentation on Wikipedia.  We no longer need consensus before we
> can at least try something out.  Don't you think the paranoid
> community would have rejected a proposal to disallow users that
> weren't logged in from creating new articles?  I certainly do, in fact
> if you want consensus I don't even think the community would accept
> such a proposal now (maybe it'd get a majority, I really don't know).

Jimbo is our benevolent dictator. He can do things because he's the
boss. If Jimbo decrees something that doesn't mean the rest of us
should stop looking for concensus.
>
> > If people won't trust
> > admins to semi-speedy something, why would they trust them to speedy
> > something?
>
> I don't understand that question at all.  Why should the votes of a
> few non-admins and a few admins override the consensus of all admins?
> If all admins insist on keeping something deleted, then there's
> nothing that can be done about it.
>
> > If anything, considering how we've grown, I wouldn't be
> > surprised if people would vote down proposals like Preliminary Deletion
> > even harder. People are scared of the potential for admin abuse. And
> > frankly, I don't blame them.
>
> As long as the ability to delete remains possible, the potential for
> admin abuse is very small.  What is the potential abuse here?  GNAA
> gets deleted?  I actually doubt it would.
>
> You know what, forget the AFD experiment.  Let's give admins free
> reign over deletion for one week.  Surely they won't vandalise
> Wikipedia to the point where we can't fix things after the week is up.
>  After one week, we look at what got deleted, and we see if there was
> any admin abuse, and if so how severe it was.
>
> AFD is still there, but it's there for actual disputes.  Preferably
> it's there mainly for discussion about the underlying issues of what
> should and shouldn't be deleted, and doesn't get bogged down in
> minutiae of every single article (in some especially heated cases
> maybe there will be a vote over a single article, but not hundreds a
> day).  AFD doesn't get it right perfectly 100% of the time.  There's
> no reason admins need to either.  As long as there aren't gross
> violations of the standards which we reach *through consensus*, it
> really doesn't matter.
>
How can you determine if there is a dispute at the moment you nominate
something? If it's not yet deleted, it needs to be discussed (AFD is a
debate). If it is deleted in error you go to DRV.
> We'll probably wind up with somewhat more deletions this way, and
> really I see that as a bad thing.  But as AFD has pretty much
> completely abandoned the notion of consensus anyway, it's probably
> inevitable.
>


body:
stevertigo wrote:

> "Voting is evil." Though Im just a dumb American, I
> understand perfectly well how familiarly
> quasi-aristocratic institutionalism might rub some
> people the right way.

Don't be dense. [[m:Polls are evil (and stupid)]]

- d.


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Why Turn of AFD?

body:
On 12/10/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>
> > Why delete an entire process to deal with user's personal actions and
> > feelings? Going on a process deactivation rampage isn't going to do
> > the job.
>
>
> Because all process is instruction creep until proven otherwise, and can
> still become it. You realise of course that the process of actually
> changing deletion policy is utterly bogged down because no-one trusts
> anyone else's suggestions to be in good faith.
>
> "user's personal actions and feelings" because the process has an
> atmosphere of assumption of bad faith. A deletion policy is a good
> thing; this one sucks by its results - driving knowledgeable people off
> Wikipedia, assumption of bad faith to all outsiders to the deletion
> process, unnecessary forking from Wikipedia (Comixpedia), etc.
>
>
> > Exactly how is keeping deletable stuff around for 2 weeks or longer a
> > good thing? The longer you leave it the easier it is for people to
> > muck up and let it slip through. I'm not talking about a deletion
> > rampage, I'm talking about stuff that everyone already agrees on
> > should be deleted.
>
>
> Did you see Tony Sidaway's email giving the actual numbers? AFD creates
> angst way out of proportion to its actual effects on the article base.

The letters AFD appear 9 times on [[WP:AN/I]]

George Bush gets mentioned at least 10 times. George W Bush is just one article.

> If you want to delete something, what's wrong with taking long enough to
> get it right? Five days is not enough. People who can't be fucked to
> tell the article creator are manifestly not taking sufficient care, but
> try adding that to deletion policy and see how far you get.
>
>
> - d.

To be fair unless {{Subst:test}} counts as telling the author they
tend not to be told about speedies either.
--
geni


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Preformatted blank articles? (was Experiment on new
	pages and GFDL)

body:
On 09/12/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:

> While this would just be wikitext, and any experienced Wikipedia regular
> could of course format an article how they liked, new editors would be
> presented clearly with what we expect from a new article.
>
> With this in place, I think we could even allow anons to create articles
> again on en:. They certainly wouldn't just put "so what do you want me
> to type?"

Another benefit: stick in [[Category:New articles]] as prefilled text
at the bottom. We end up with a cleanup category, where articles will
go until someone hacks them about a bit and (eg) categorises them. A
nice corrolary to Newpages, in that you can see an experienced editor
*hasn't* been at the page yet...

It's worth a shot.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Turn off AfD

body:
On 12/10/05, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> Bands are a good example.  In theory, we could say "failing WP:MUSIC
> makes them speediable".  But there's always a chance that we might want
> to keep articles on some of the bands which fail WP:MUSIC ... and that's
> what AfD is for.

I would certainly not agree with making the failing of the WP:MUSIC
tests as a criterion for speedy deletion - or indeed any other of
these guidelines.  I agree that a decent article on a band that passes
WP:MUSIC *should never* be deleted, but that there are grounds for
keeping beyond those included in any such set of guidelines.

I also don't, bluntly, trust every admin out there to apply complex
criteria fairly (in either direction).

-Matt


body:
Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 09/12/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:

>>While this would just be wikitext, and any experienced Wikipedia regular
>>could of course format an article how they liked, new editors would be
>>presented clearly with what we expect from a new article.
>>With this in place, I think we could even allow anons to create articles
>>again on en:. They certainly wouldn't just put "so what do you want me
>>to type?"

> Another benefit: stick in [[Category:New articles]] as prefilled text
> at the bottom. We end up with a cleanup category, where articles will
> go until someone hacks them about a bit and (eg) categorises them. A
> nice corrolary to Newpages, in that you can see an experienced editor
> *hasn't* been at the page yet...

Brilliant!

- d.


body:
stevertigo wrote:

> Jefferson distinguished in his later years between

Go refute [[m:Polls are evil]], then come back here and fight the power.

- d.


body:
On 12/10/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Any thoughts on my preloaded new article template idea? It's just
> wikitext, so regulars could do what they liked, but newbies will see a
> clear indication of what we expect in an article.

Not the user you asked, but I figured I'd put my oar in here and say
it's a very good idea indeed.  It might gain more support if there was
an option in preferences to turn it off for experienced editors who
didn't like the prefill.

-Matt


body:
A lot of the poisonous feelings on AFD seems to come from sheep voting
and people voting without providing rationales. Perhaps we should
improve the debate-percentage and require people to provide
rationales.

I suggest a two step process:
1) The first 24 or 48 hours people submit rationales for or against deletion.
2) After that people can vote on which of these they support.
Similar to a finding of the facts.

This would make it easier to discount votes based on outdated or
incorrect reasons. "Article is too short" (after it was expanded), or
"unreferenced" (when acutally the link was temporarily down).

It would also make it easier to see at a glance whether it was deleted
for being non-notable, for missing references or for being in a
irredeemable state.

Mock Up Example:

===[[FakeBand]]===
====DELETE====
* Band yields only 12 Google hits; all on geocities, lycos and myspace
apart from official site which indicates they're not famous or having
an effect on the music industry. - [[User:Example1]]
**Support -- [[User:Example1]]
**Support -- [[User:Example2]]
**Support -- [[User:Example3]]
**Support -- [[User:Example4]]
**Support -- [[User:Example5]]
**Support -- [[User:Example6]]

* Band has no All Music Guide entry. (WP:MUSIC)  -- [[User:Example1]]
**Support -- [[User:Example1]]
**Support -- [[User:Example2]]
**Support -- [[User:Example3]]
**Support -- [[User:Example4]]
* Band has no albums on Amazon. (WP:MUSIC) -- [[User:Example1]]
**Support -- [[User:Example1]]
**Support -- [[User:Example2]]
**Support -- [[User:Example3]]
**Support -- [[User:Example4]]
**Support -- [[User:Example5]]
**Support -- [[User:Example6]]
* The listed albums are self-produced as admitted by creator. --
[[User:Example2]]
**Support -- [[User:Example1]]
**Support -- [[User:Example2]]

====KEEP====
* Band DOES have 3 albums. They're listed on the official site. We
just couldn't get them in the stores yet. (www.fakeband.com). --
[[User:ArticleCreator]]
**Support -- [[User:ArticleCreator]]


body:
On 12/10/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>
> > That is clearly against policy and such people should simply be
> > ignored. Articles can only be deleted if they were substantially
> > similar to deleted work. Perhaps it would help if we were to require
> > specification of whether someone was voting based on the article
> > subject or the article state?
>
>
> Ignoring policy is already de rigeur on AFD. Compare voting and
> nomination patterns on AFD to [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy]]. The actual
> policy on AFD is "Because we feel like it." This is another reason to
> nuke from orbit and see if the cockroaches can do deletion better.
>
>
> - d.
>
Examples?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Why Turn of AFD?

body:
On 12/10/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>
> > You seem to want to turn off AFD because you think the central page
> > sparks too much poisonous feelings. I'm saying that turning off AFD,
> > or using an alternative tagging method like the one speedy uses now
> > allows for articles that should be deleted to slip through the net.
> > Especially when they have 2 weeks or a month to be manipulated.
>
>
> So what? They can be retagged later. If you want to present a polished
> face to the world, a deletion rampage isn't going to do the job.
>
>
> - d.
>
Why delete an entire process to deal with user's personal actions and
feelings? Going on a process deactivation rampage isn't going to do
the job.

Exactly how is keeping deletable stuff around for 2 weeks or longer a
good thing? The longer you leave it the easier it is for people to
muck up and let it slip through. I'm not talking about a deletion
rampage, I'm talking about stuff that everyone already agrees on
should be deleted. Two, we need to place to discuss the stuff before
deleting possibly contentious articles. Turning it off will spark
deletions regular users didn't have a say in. It takes away the place
it should be discussed at.

Mgm


body:
Then just call it "references". Newbies are sure to mix up external
links with references if you are calling them "external references".
99.9% of them are external anyway unless they are from other Wikipedia
articles in which case the original sources need to be copied over as
well anyway.

Mgm

On 12/10/05, Keith Old <keithold at gmail.com> wrote:
> David,
>
> I think that the idea is worth pursuing with one minor suggestion that
> external links be changed to external references.
>
> Links should be added only if the site has been used as a source in
> preparing the articles or if they provide a valuable resource for the reader
> to find out more about the topic.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Keith Old
>
>
> Keith Old
> User:Capitalistroadster
> On 12/11/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Another one of the things I pride myself on is being careful when it
> >
> > > comes to creation. I may not create much articles, but the ones I do
> > > make NEVER face deletion because I make sure they indicate notability
> > > and have sufficient reliable references. AFD wouldn't even be as
> > > overcrowded as it is now if everyone did the same.
> >
> >
> >
> > Any thoughts on my preloaded new article template idea? It's just
> > wikitext, so regulars could do what they liked, but newbies will see a
> > clear indication of what we expect in an article.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
> Any thoughts on my preloaded new article template idea? It's just
> wikitext, so regulars could do what they liked, but newbies will see a
> clear indication of what we expect in an article.

What do they look like at the moment. I'd like to take a look.

Mgm


from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject: [WikiEN-l] Turn off AfD

body:
G'day Keith,

> Alternatively, we shouldn't shut down a system that works reasonably
> well and performs an important task without having something that
> works better.

Ay, there's the rub.  I get the feeling those arguing for shutting down
AfD don't feel that it *does* perform an important task.  Rather, they'd
prefer not to have deletions at all (other than CSDs, which already
apparently go too far ...).

If you've noted an element of sarcasm or, at the very least,
tongue-in-cheekery from David, Anthony, etc. then this may provide a
plausible explanation as to why.

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/197 - Release Date: 9/12/2005


subject: [WikiEN-l] Turn off AfD

body:
G'day Phil,

> Turn off AfD. See what happens. if it's a disaster, we turn it back  on
> and say "Well, shit, that was interesting." If it's not a  disaster...
> we say "Well, neat, that was interesting." Really,  there's only about
> three letters difference in the reactions.

And if we can't agree on the results?  If a vocal minority --- including
your good self --- cries "yippee, my article on minor fanfic characters
can't be deleted!  Neat!", do we consider the experiment a success?

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/197 - Release Date: 9/12/2005


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: how switching language for anonymos users

body:
Heinz wrote:
> How can i let anonymus users chose their language eg. by clicking
> buttons for "english" or "german".
>
> I know this works for registrated users within preferences.
>
> Any ideas?

There is a &useSkin parameter for skin preview but it's not passed to
the links in the page. Maybe there is a useLang parameter too. You will
then have to hack the code to propagate the parameter to all link.

It's probably better to have anonymous users register an account.

Another possibility is to have several mediawiki installation using the
same database but with different $wgLang parameters.

--
Ashar Voultoiz


body:
On 10/12/05, Brian Haws <brian at bhaws.com> wrote:

(...)

> Writing from the peanut gallery, I think this is a great idea, it plants the
> seed in new editors heads that those components are an intergral part of a
> well formatted article. Where does it go from here?

1 - Find out if MediaWiki can handle automatically filling a new edit
box with boilerplate text, preferably able to restrict the function to
the main namespace.
2 - If it can't, find a developer and [whine/beg/give them beer] until
MediaWiki can.
3 - Persuade someone it's a good idea to give it a shot. This person
is, for the moment, likely to be called Jimbo.
4 - Give it a shot.
5 - Wait for screams of outrage.
6 - Profit!

(Thinking about it, would it also be a good idea to add a {{stub}} tag
as default? 95% of them will be, and the stub-sorting people are
pretty good at routing those stubs to where they need to go... and at
removing the ones that obviously aren't)

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


from_name: Daniel Wunsch

body:
On Saturday 10 December 2005 21:57, Ashar Voultoiz wrote:

> There is a &useSkin parameter for skin preview but it's not passed to
> the links in the page. Maybe there is a useLang parameter too. You will
> then have to hack the code to propagate the parameter to all link.

it's useskin and uselang, all lowercase, and uselang does work.
an ugly alternative to hacking the PHP code would be to mangle
all links with a little bit of javascript.

daniel


from_name: ABCD

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Google Alert - Wikipedia

body:
On 12/10/05, Google Alerts wrote:
> A Little Sleuthing Unmasks Writer of Wikipedia Prank
> New York Times - United States
> It started as a joke and ended up as a shot heard round the Internet, with
> the joker losing his job and Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, suffering
> a blow to ...
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/business/media/11web.html>

Well, it looks like the guy confessed...


from_name: Martin Osterman

body:
Unfortunately, I find this whole incident sad, from start to finish.  I'm
glad that there's some sort of closure, but the ramifications of this man's
"joke" will have long-lasting effects for years to come.  I certainly hope
that he got a good laugh out of it now, because there will be little
laughter for a long time to come.

-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org]
On Behalf Of ABCD
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 10:37 PM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Google Alert - Wikipedia

On 12/10/05, Google Alerts wrote:
> A Little Sleuthing Unmasks Writer of Wikipedia Prank
> New York Times - United States
> It started as a joke and ended up as a shot heard round the Internet, with
> the joker losing his job and Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, suffering
> a blow to ...
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/business/media/11web.html>

Well, it looks like the guy confessed...
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] Turn off AfD

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ray Saintonge wrote:

>>
>> Adminship is supposedly not a big deal, but it is. This is even
>> more clear when you look at Requests for Bureaucratship, where many
>> people vote oppose because "we don't need more bureaucrats". I know
>> this is off-topic, but I really think we should be looking into the
>> RfA process as well as AfD, because RfA appears to be becoming the
>> new VfD (yes, VfD). Last time, it was the "in" thing to bash VfD.
>> Now, it's the "in" thing to bash RfA, as anyone who spends some
>> time on our IRC channels should notice. This is worrying.
>
>
> Never underestimate the overwhelming power of stupidity. In more
> dangerous circumstances some of these people woud be candidates for
> Darwin Awards. :-)

Being someone who votes oppose to RFBs if he thinks there isn't need
for new bureaucrats, you might want to be careful about what you say
to a mailing list. You aren't sending a private email to your buddy here.

- -Ryan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDm6Ac6MKb8lYmCtcRAhz8AJ4xgS1Ea5X5KN77/5TNz6jSDwDrZACguh5J
UQSH0bLuB5bG+Q1JNhkdhIM=
=IHGC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Ryan W. (Merovingian)

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Re: Separate namespace for Deletions and other
	achives?

body:
Oh, I want it very much to be as automated as possible.  A bot could archive what we've got already, and then be set up to archive at such-and-such an interval.  For AfD, it could be every 24 hours.  For RfA, that could be done manually, there's only a few promotions per day at most.

--Ryan

> From: "M. Creidieki Crouch" <creidieki at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Separate namespace for Deletions and other
> 	achives?
>
> On 12/10/05, Ryan W. (Merovingian) <bigwiki at earthling.net> wrote:
> > I like that idea a lot, but I would suggest that those pages
> > moved to such a namespace stay protected, in the same way that
> > the MediaWiki: namespace is.  If the pages are only archives,
> > there's no reason in having to patrol them for vandalism.
>
> That sounded really good at first thought, but if the entire namespace
> is protected, nonadmins wouldn't be able to archive pages.
>
> Admittedly, that would mean that people would run for admin saying, "I
> want to archive ---", and would probably end up slightly relaxing the
> standards for admins.  I don't know whether that would be good or bad.
>
> We might be able to get around this problem with some sort of an
> "archive this page" bot or tool, or some other hack.
>
> But if we don't protect the namespace, I don't think that the
> vandalism potential is changed at all from our current position.
>
> -- Creidieki

--
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/


from_name: Peter Danenberg

subject: [Wikitech-l] Hooking

body:
> Or, as I'm beginning to suspect the more I think about it, a mixture
> of the three [...].

     Excellent  semantic reconstruction, Rowan: in good sad-
ness is an  Elizabethan  phrase  meaning  "but  seriously;"*
while  hook,  lock  and flanker belong to an elaborate rubgy
analogy.

     In order to avoid the proliferation  of  hooks,  Apache
introduced  a notion of filter in 2.0: each filter is passed
a "bucket brigade" or stream of data which  it  may  process
before passing it to the next filter.

     Autonomous,  chained  filters are said to be more effi-
cient than centrally managed mods.

-----------
  * See Taming of the Shrew, V.ii: "Now,  in  good
sadness, son Petruchio, I think thou hast the ver-
iest shrew of all."


subject: [WikiEN-l] Semi-protection policy proposal

body:
Due to problems with vandalism, there's a proposal at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Semi-protection_policy
to allow for semi-protection of pages: that is, have the possibility for
pages subject to massive amounts of vandalism (such as [[George W. Bush]])
be protected from edits by anonymous users and the newest registered users,
rather than fully protecting the page, which would lock up the entire page
from being edited by anyone. This proposal already has a significant amount
of support on the talk page, and is hopefully moving towards becoming
policy. It's intended solely as a vandalism-reducing tool, and so will have
the same usage patterns as protection due to vandalism has at present.

Please take a look at it and give us your thoughts.


body:
Pre-categorizing new articles assumes the newbies won't touch the code.
If that indeed happens I prefer a "New article" category over new
articles automatically being tagged as stub. They may not be stubby,
though I must admit the chance is pretty high.

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] (was Turn off article creation AND deletion.)

body:
On 12/10/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
> I don't know if it will work, but at least it's an attempt at a
> constructive solution.  Any antidote to the poisonous atmosphere is
> worth considering.  I would also couple it with an easier Undeletion
> process.  As long as deletion is a bitter process closure is
> understandably a welcome result for the deletionists.  With a more
> relaxed process a deletion won't be seen as so much of a campaign, and a
> general consesnsus for deletion should be more easily achieved.  This
> means that there will be a reduced desire for undeletion.  Some articles
> will still fall through the cracks for various reasons, and we should be
> more willing to accept these as ordinarty mistakes that anybody can make.
>
> Ec
>
You wrote: "As long as deletion is a bitter process closure is
understandably a welcome result for the deletionists.  With a more
relaxed process a deletion won't be seen as so much of a campaign, and
a general consesnsus for deletion should be more easily achieved."

What has this got to do with deletionists? Anyone would be happy with
a less tense atmosphere in a wiki. I don't see what that has to do
with deletionism or inclusionism? You sound like deletionists want
everything on AFD deleted all the time and it is exactly this kind of
thing that's causing a poisonous atmosphere.

Perhaps there's a few indivuduals, but you can't generalize for ALL
deletionists.

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Why Turn of AFD?

body:
On 12/10/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Exactly how is keeping deletable stuff around for 2 weeks or longer a
> > good thing? The longer you leave it the easier it is for people to
> > muck up and let it slip through.
>
> What do you mean "muck up"?  You mean they might change their minds
> and decide not to delete it after all?

No, I mean they may forget to list an obviously deletable article after 2 weeks.
I don't know what I did 2 weeks ago on the wiki. Do you? I'm saying we
shouldn't delay deletions just because deletion upsets some people.

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Why Turn of AFD?

body:
> Two, we need to place to discuss the stuff before
> deleting possibly contentious articles. Turning it off will spark
> deletions regular users didn't have a say in. It takes away the place
> it should be discussed at.

If you want to delete something, what's wrong with taking long enough to
get it right? Five days is not enough. People who can't be fucked to
tell the article creator are manifestly not taking sufficient care, but
try adding that to deletion policy and see how far you get.

Yes, I want to do it right, make the listing time longer. Hell, if I
can I'll inform the author, I will. This quote of mine referred to
shutting off AFD. What I'm worried about is the backlog we are
creating by shutting off AFD without any sort of backup to replace it
with. We can expand speedies and try alternative methods, but we need
a backup in place and running in case it falls flat.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Why Turn of AFD?

body:
On 12/10/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
> > On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>I'm saying that turning off AFD,
> >>or using an alternative tagging method like the one speedy uses now
> >>allows for articles that should be deleted to slip through the net.
> >>Especially when they have 2 weeks or a month to be manipulated.
>
> > Umm, you're saying that giving an article that "should be deleted"
> > might, given time, actually improve to the point where it cannot be
> > deleted?  Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?
> > If it *is* what you're saying, then obviously that's wrong!  We cannot
> > have people improving articles that someone else thinks should exist!
> > That will never do!  :)
>
>
> Indeed. MGM, you appear to be approaching article deletion as a win/lose
> process, where keeping an article constitutes losing.
>
>
> - d.

It depends, as long as we can't speedy delete obvious unexpandable
dicdefs and bandvanity, we need AFD to deal with them. Those have to
be deleted and if they're not I think Wikipedia as a whole loses.
There's other articles I think should be kept, which is exactly why I
think AFD should be kept. Give people a chance to convince others
keeping certain articles is the right thing to do. If you check my 100
day AFD statistics you'll see I'm not the deletionist you make me out
to be.

I'm trying to improve AFD to lessen the poisonous atmosphere, yet keep
what I consider to be its good points. You seem to be radically
against AFD, suggesting to me you feel having anything deleted
constitutes losing.

I know AFD won't scale, so I'm willing to compromise and work to
propose something that improves AFD, yet is not as radical as closing
it down alltogether even for a short time. But I seem to get
opposition just for wanting to keep AFD in working order just because
it's not perfect at the moment.

"Improve, don't delete" is a good stance to take on articles, so I
don't see why it should be any different for AFD (in which case
'delete' is 'shutdown').


subject: [WikiEN-l] Why Turn of AFD?

body:
On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> No, I mean they may forget to list an obviously deletable article after 2 weeks.
> I don't know what I did 2 weeks ago on the wiki. Do you? I'm saying we
> shouldn't delay deletions just because deletion upsets some people.
>

Really if that's your worry then you should look at the economics.

To list an article for deletion requires a minimum of three edits:

1) Edit article.
2) Edit deletion page.
3) Edit AfD day log to transclude deletion page.

If you encounter an article that needs to be deleted but cannot be
speedy deleted during an experimental closing of AfD, just add a link
to that article to your user page.

That's *one* edit.

If at the end of the experiment you look at the article again, and you
still think it needs to be deleted, then list it for deletion.

If instead it's turned into something good, then we've learned
something and a good article has been produced.

An alternative would be to permit AfD to continue as usual, but on the
understanding that no AfD closes would be performed for the duration
of the experiment, except valid speedy deletions and speedy keeps
under the normal terms.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Structured discussion of AFD

body:
I don't know what others think, but I feel the mailing list discussion
on this whole AFD issue isn't structured. Lot of people are sharing
their opinion, but after a few days of discussion we still don't seem
to get to a middle ground.

By organizing a discussion structured as a compact "finding of the
facts", I hope to find out where our opinions differ so we can address
them directly.

Please visit my discussion page where I have up a few points on what I
see the current state of AFD. Please join in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MacGyverMagic/Deletion/Reform

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Turn off AfD

body:
> It's this notion of a "somewhat final decision" that's the problem.  Two
> editors, at least one of whom must be a sysop for technical reasns,
> should be all that's needed for undeletion.
>
> Ec

Why should 2 people be able to overthrow a bunch of others in case
where there's nothing wrong with their judgement? You'd need a bloody
good reasons for an undeletion. If you have evidence they were
misinformed, undelete. If you know they didn't provide a valid
rationale, undelete. If they provided a now outdated rationale,
undelete. But undeletions as well as deletions should be proofed and
checked by the community before they happen.

What makes you say only two people are needed?

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Turn off AfD

body:
On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Why should 2 people be able to overthrow a bunch of others in case
> where there's nothing wrong with their judgement?

One person can do it.  Why should "a bunch of others" *not* be wrong
in their judgement?

> You'd need a bloody
> good reasons for an undeletion.

Like getting it wrong.

But undeletions as well as deletions should be proofed and
> checked by the community before they happen.

Seldom works like that.  Anyone who thinks that AfD is the forum most
conducive to assuming bad faith should spend a couple of days reading
Deletion Review.  We do have an undeletion policy, but deletion review
is conducted in an atmosphere where any attempt to quote that
undeletion policy on the page is repeatedly reverted.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Turn off AfD

body:
On 12/11/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Why should 2 people be able to overthrow a bunch of others in case
> > where there's nothing wrong with their judgement?
>
> One person can do it.

Not if they want to stay an admin.

> Why should "a bunch of others" *not* be wrong
> in their judgement?

Why should two people be right in thier judgment.

> Seldom works like that.  Anyone who thinks that AfD is the forum most
> conducive to assuming bad faith should spend a couple of days reading
> Deletion Review.  We do have an undeletion policy, but deletion review
> is conducted in an atmosphere where any attempt to quote that
> undeletion policy on the page is repeatedly reverted.

It isn't a policy page.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Turn off AfD

body:
On 12/11/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Why should 2 people be able to overthrow a bunch of others in case
> > where there's nothing wrong with their judgement?
>
> One person can do it.  Why should "a bunch of others" *not* be wrong
> in their judgement?
>
>
> > You'd need a bloody
> > good reasons for an undeletion.
>
> Like getting it wrong.
>
>
> But undeletions as well as deletions should be proofed and
> > checked by the community before they happen.
>
> Seldom works like that.  Anyone who thinks that AfD is the forum most
> conducive to assuming bad faith should spend a couple of days reading
> Deletion Review.  We do have an undeletion policy, but deletion review
> is conducted in an atmosphere where any attempt to quote that
> undeletion policy on the page is repeatedly reverted.

I agree, DRV is making it quite hard to get valid stuff undeleted, but
if one allows just two people to agree on stuff like this I expect a
lot of deletion wars. Addressing people ignoring the need to undelete
when new evidence is presented in DRV seems more useful to me. Have
you got any particular case in mind?

Mgm


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Why Turn of AFD?

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

> I'm trying to improve AFD to lessen the poisonous atmosphere, yet keep
> what I consider to be its good points. You seem to be radically
> against AFD, suggesting to me you feel having anything deleted
> constitutes losing.

I have said precisely the opposite several times; there really isn't
much point discussing this with you if you'll ignore what people say in
the course of the discussion. There's a web archive if you're losing
track and need to recap.

- d.


from_name: Cormac Lawler

subject: [WikiEN-l] Well, we have at least one important supporter

body:
On 12/11/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Very interesting!  I live in Richmond as well.
>
> According to http://www.iconsf.org/archive/icon23/frazer_jd.htm his full
> name is John Douglas Robertshaw-Frazer.  His latest book,  "Money For
> Content and Your Clicks For Free" was just published last month
>
> Robertshaw is not a very common name.  The only one that I found in the
> telephone listings for Richmond is Stan Robertshaw who ran for Richmond
> City Council in 2002, and finished dead last.  He campaigned as "The
> Bagman", attending all his campaign appearances with a paper bag over
> his head.  It's conceivable that this our guy's father, but I'll need to
> check that out before I can say so for sure.
>
> Ec
>

Well, if you ever bump into him, you can tell him that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Friendly is still available..

Cormac


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikitech-l] RfC: Split page title into components

body:
Just a relatively small hypothetical change I'd like to solicit feedback
on: Currently the page title (the part of the page rendered in <h1>) is
simply a single string, sometimes concatenated from multiple components.
I'd like to split it into an associative array, e.g.

	array(
           'action'=>'Editing',
           'namespace'=>'Talk',
           'mainpart'=>'French revolution',
	  'section'=>true
	)

Except for 'mainpart', all keys would be optional. The main reason I'd
like to do this is so we can style namespaces separately from the title
(and perhaps even associate them with icons). But I think it would come
in handy for skinning in general.

Any objections to this change, or did I overlook any gotchas?

Erik


body:
Brion Vibber:
> Or, if you specifically mean what goes into the
...
, that's set by
> whatever fun function is running the output for this view (eg, Article::view,
> Article::edit, the special page, etc.).

Yes, I'm only referring to this output part which is set with
setPageTitle. There you currently have something like "Talk:Main Page",
which is rendered into

Talk:Main Page

in MonoBook. The skin has no logical knowledge of the title other than
as a single string.

I'd like to be able to style the text "Talk:" separately from the text
"Main Page", perhaps add an optional icon (which could be configured in
the namespace manager). Other possible uses would be visually separating
subpages from main title parts, allowing skins to visually treat a
prefix like "Editing .." differently from the title itself, etc.
Generally, piecing together raw text and passing it on to skins doesn't
strike me as good design, I think we should pass on the components and
let the skins decide how to display them.

Does that make sense? It's not a major change, but I thought I'd see if
anyone has a problem with it before diving in. :)

Erik


from_name: John Lee

body:
Keith Old wrote:

>David,
>
>I think that the idea is worth pursuing with one minor suggestion that
>external links be changed to external references.
>
>Links should be added only if the site has been used as a source in
>preparing the articles or if they provide a valuable resource for the reader
>to find out more about the topic.
>
>Regards
>
>
>Keith Old
>
>
>Keith Old
>User:Capitalistroadster
>
>
Bad idea. References are references; links are links. For instance, in
the [[iMDB]] article, having imdb.com as an external link would make
sense. But a reference would be a specific page on imdb.com about its
history, processes or staff, not the main imdb.com webpage itself.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])


from_name: Keith Old

body:
I think the idea of a heavily promoted Article Improvement Week is a useful
one.

However, there is no reason to turn off AfD. Indeed, often the reason that
articles are in AfD is that the topic is notable but the article is crap for
various reasons including:

* short and lacking context;

* bogus articles on legitimate topics;

* lacking references.

My main focus in AfD is looking for articles that can be improved and turned
into encyclopedia articles. There is no reason that AfD cannot form part of
Article Improvement Week.

Similarly, not allowing the development of new articles may turn off newbies
who came to Wikipedia for the purpose of creating articles. If we were to
turn off article creation for the week, we should continue to have Articles
for Creation working as well as allowing people to work on articles in their
userspace. Alternatively, we could have a situation where articles could
only be added by authorisation of an admin who could certify that it meets
minimum encyclopedic standards.

The main focus of Article improvement week should be to have banners
proclaiming it everywhere with a page showing how articles have been
improved (ie articles cleaned up, stubs expanded, articles referenced and so
on).

In summary, the idea of an Article Improvement Week is a useful one and
should be pursued.

Regards

Keith Old

Keith Old
User:Capitalistroadster

On 12/11/05, Brian Haws <brian at bhaws.com> wrote:

> Effects I expect at the end of the week:
>
>   * Some article polishing.
>   * More people practiced in article polishing.
>   * A flood of new articles out of userspace. Hopefully better ones.
> People will also treat this as "work on those new articles you were
> thinking about" week. That's fine too.
>   * A consequent flood of AFDs, but hopefully not as much because the
> articles will have been worked on for a week!
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> I think with the exceptions here and elsewhere I think it's worth
> trying  out for a week to see what happens. We're falling farther and
> farther  behind with cleanup and it's not impossible that doing this 4-5
> times a  year might make a real difference. It might also make cleanup type
> work more of a core value among editors...
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
David,

I think that the idea is worth pursuing with one minor suggestion that
external links be changed to external references.

Links should be added only if the site has been used as a source in
preparing the articles or if they provide a valuable resource for the reader
to find out more about the topic.

Regards

Keith Old

Keith Old
User:Capitalistroadster
On 12/11/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
> MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>
>
> > Another one of the things I pride myself on is being careful when it
>
> > comes to creation. I may not create much articles, but the ones I do
> > make NEVER face deletion because I make sure they indicate notability
> > and have sufficient reliable references. AFD wouldn't even be as
> > overcrowded as it is now if everyone did the same.
>
>
>
> Any thoughts on my preloaded new article template idea? It's just
> wikitext, so regulars could do what they liked, but newbies will see a
> clear indication of what we expect in an article.
>
>
> - d.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Next experiment: switch off AFD for a month. (was
	Guardian in defense of Wikipedia)

body:
On 12/10/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/9/05, Keith Old <keithold at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Further to MGM's point, as we get more popular, more attention will be paid
> > to us and we cannot afford to carry thousands of bad articles if we can
> > avoid it.
> >
>
>
> We already do; after the speedies have done their pass, AfD only
> scratches the surface of crappy material, and human judgement being so
> variable, a lot of potentially good material also has to run the
> gauntlet. The only way to avoid the appearance of unencyclopedic
> articles on Wikipedia and their persistence on Wikipedia is to disable
> article creation.  Or we can admit the obvious: that Wikipedia is a
> work in progress.

Moreover, I'd say AFD is a horrible solution for "bad articles".  The
vast majority of "bad articles" deleted via AFD, which don't already
fall under a speedy deletion criterion, could easily be either changed
into a redirect or into a good, albeit short, article (usually on an
obscure subject).

If you're saying we can't afford to carry good short articles on
obscure subjects, well, I disagree there.  We can afford to do it, and
it doesn't require lowering our standards at all.

One thing we should probably introduce in this area though is that
articles which do not provide any references should be speedy
deletions.  Now there are probably a whole lot of good articles out
there right now which would fit that, so for now let's make the CSD
criterion only for articles caught in the first 48 hours.  And let's
require the user who created the article to be informed of the
deletion on her talk page.

Of course admins can and should be encouraged to add references
instead of just deleting the article.  But it's not a requirement.
Yes, some potentially good articles might be deleted.  But as this
only affects new articles right now, it's no worse than turning off
new article creation completely.  Yes, some people will intentionally
troll Wikipedia with obscure sources that can't be easily verified.
This doesn't fix that, something else will have to.  But it's not a
new problem.

Unverifiable information in the encyclopedia is kind of like images
without any license information.  It's such a huge problem (or at
least it was a year ago) we can't just delete them all outright.  But
we should stop the influx of new articles like this.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Turn off AfD

body:
On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/10/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > On 12/10/05, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
> > > Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> > >
> > > >How do you deal with crap everyone agrees should be deleted, but is
> > > >not actually speediable?  Here's a thought - make it speediable!
> > > >
> > > >Anthony
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Are you kidding? A year ago, the paranoid community rejected two
> > > different measures for something *in between* speedy deletion and AFD
> > > (both involved admin discretion but not full reliance on it). What makes
> > > you think anything will have changed this year?
> >
> > I *don't* think anything will have changed.  I said was talking about
> > what we *should* do, not what's going to happen.  If everyone agrees
> > something should be deleted, we should delete it, period.  Running it
> > through some AFD process first is not smart.
>
> And how are you going to determine whether everyone agrees? Without a
> central place, the only way to find out if a discussion is going is by
> running across it on RC or in a watchlist, which you could miss if you
> happen to not be online when it happens.

I think it's kind of obvious when an article is so horrible that no
one thinks it can be retained - not even if it's cleaned up, not even
if it's changed into a redirect.

> > That said, if we turned off AFD, I think the number of speediable
> > categories would quickly grow.
> >
> > Plus, in my opinion, Jimbo has set us into a new era of
> > experimentation on Wikipedia.  We no longer need consensus before we
> > can at least try something out.  Don't you think the paranoid
> > community would have rejected a proposal to disallow users that
> > weren't logged in from creating new articles?  I certainly do, in fact
> > if you want consensus I don't even think the community would accept
> > such a proposal now (maybe it'd get a majority, I really don't know).
>
> Jimbo is our benevolent dictator. He can do things because he's the
> boss. If Jimbo decrees something that doesn't mean the rest of us
> should stop looking for concensus.

Obviously this experiment won't take place without a) consensus, or b)
Jimbo's approval.  My posts on here are an attempt to either form such
a consensus or convince Jimbo to implement it.

> > > If people won't trust
> > > admins to semi-speedy something, why would they trust them to speedy
> > > something?
> >
> > I don't understand that question at all.  Why should the votes of a
> > few non-admins and a few admins override the consensus of all admins?
> > If all admins insist on keeping something deleted, then there's
> > nothing that can be done about it.
> >
> > > If anything, considering how we've grown, I wouldn't be
> > > surprised if people would vote down proposals like Preliminary Deletion
> > > even harder. People are scared of the potential for admin abuse. And
> > > frankly, I don't blame them.
> >
> > As long as the ability to delete remains possible, the potential for
> > admin abuse is very small.  What is the potential abuse here?  GNAA
> > gets deleted?  I actually doubt it would.
> >
> > You know what, forget the AFD experiment.  Let's give admins free
> > reign over deletion for one week.  Surely they won't vandalise
> > Wikipedia to the point where we can't fix things after the week is up.
> >  After one week, we look at what got deleted, and we see if there was
> > any admin abuse, and if so how severe it was.
> >
> > AFD is still there, but it's there for actual disputes.  Preferably
> > it's there mainly for discussion about the underlying issues of what
> > should and shouldn't be deleted, and doesn't get bogged down in
> > minutiae of every single article (in some especially heated cases
> > maybe there will be a vote over a single article, but not hundreds a
> > day).  AFD doesn't get it right perfectly 100% of the time.  There's
> > no reason admins need to either.  As long as there aren't gross
> > violations of the standards which we reach *through consensus*, it
> > really doesn't matter.
> >
> How can you determine if there is a dispute at the moment you nominate
> something? If it's not yet deleted, it needs to be discussed (AFD is a
> debate). If it is deleted in error you go to DRV.

You delete it and see if anyone objects.  If it's already been deleted
and undeleted, then obviously there's a dispute.  *That* is when we
need dispute resolution.

I'm suggesting being bold in deleting pages.  "Be bold" doesn't mean
get into edit wars, but it does mean that you don't ask for permission
to do something which you don't think anyone would have a problem
with.  I think we have enough admins at this point that the abuse
level would be negligible.  Of course I'd be more comfortable if
people everyone could see the content of deleted articles, not just
admins.  Even that is much less of a problem now, though.  Non-admins
can at least see that an article has been deleted.  And the vast
majority (everyone but me?) can ask to see what the deleted text is on
wp:vfu.

> > We'll probably wind up with somewhat more deletions this way, and
> > really I see that as a bad thing.  But as AFD has pretty much
> > completely abandoned the notion of consensus anyway, it's probably
> > inevitable.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Turn off AfD

body:
On 12/10/05, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
> G'day Anthony,
>
> > On 12/9/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>On 12/9/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >>>Yes, you've confused what I've said.  I think we should add more
> >>>*objective* criteria to the speedy deletion candidates, not
> >>>*subjective* ones.
> >>
> >>If totaly objective criteria don't turn up much outside maths
> >
> > I find it hard to believe that we can't come up with objective
> > criteria for articles that everyone agrees should be deleted.
> > Verifiability, for instance, is an objective criterion.
>
> Verifiability is necessary, but not sufficient, for an encyclopaedic
> article.  But not everyone agrees on that (IIRC, you yourself have gone
> to great --- perhaps even "extreme" --- lengths to show your disagreement).
>
Well, articles should be on nouns (more specifically, articles should
be about the thing which the noun describes).  Otherwise you're
talking about a dictionary definition.  But other than that, yeah,
verifiability is pretty much all you need to at least have a redirect
(whether or not we should be redirecting things like [[beautiful]] to
[[beauty]] is a separate question the answer to which is probably
"sometimes", but I don't suggest getting rid of redirects for
deletion).

Anyway, I was specifically talking about "articles that everyone
agrees should be deleted".  "MGM" asked "You haven't addressed my
questions on how to deal with crap everyone agrees should be deleted,
but is not actually speediable (like obvious band vanity, blatant
adverts and the like)."  My response was to "make [them] speediable".


subject: [WikiEN-l] Turn off AfD

body:
On 12/10/05, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> G'day Mgm,
>
> > Pottercast/PotterCast (and podcasts in general)
> > Forums and Blogs
> > Bands (C-Moon - German, is it vanity or not?)
> > Schools (examples shouldn't be needed for this one), although I have
> > to admit discussion is pretty much growing on this. I'm sure this will
> > eventually lead to notability guidelines.
> >
> > All these could be covered by some number statistic and notability
> > guidelines, but a quick test to easily determine its deletion
> > worthiness is much harder. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to find one,
> > though.
>
> Bands are a good example.  In theory, we could say "failing WP:MUSIC
> makes them speediable".  But there's always a chance that we might want
> to keep articles on some of the bands which fail WP:MUSIC ... and that's
> what AfD is for.
>
> AfD isn't for *deleting*, it's for *keeping*.  AfD is the compromise
> between geni's "admins can delete anything they like" idea and Anthony
> (and others') disguised "nothing verifiable should be deleted, ever" idea.
>
>
> --
> Mark Gallagher
> "What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
> - Danger Mouse

Actually, I'm fine with "admins can delete anything they like".  AfD
is a long drawn out process to achieve pretty much the same result
(while claiming that "consensus" is being followed, which it isn't).
I don't think verifiable information should be deleted (at all, if you
include moving to other projects), but I've pretty much conceded that
point.  I think we should stop wasting time pretending to care about
consensus.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Turn off AfD

body:
On 12/11/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/11/05, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> > G'day Anthony,
> >
> > > On 12/9/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>On 12/9/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > >>>Yes, you've confused what I've said.  I think we should add more
> > >>>*objective* criteria to the speedy deletion candidates, not
> > >>>*subjective* ones.
> > >>
> > >>If totaly objective criteria don't turn up much outside maths
> > >
> > > I find it hard to believe that we can't come up with objective
> > > criteria for articles that everyone agrees should be deleted.
> > > Verifiability, for instance, is an objective criterion.
> >
> > Verifiability is necessary, but not sufficient, for an encyclopaedic
> > article.  But not everyone agrees on that (IIRC, you yourself have gone
> > to great --- perhaps even "extreme" --- lengths to show your disagreement).
>
> Verifiability is in some ways quite a harsh requirement. It was what
> got [[yoism]] deleted.
>
> --
> geni

I'm not familiar with that case.  It seems like you're saying that
there is non-verifiable information that should nonetheless be
included in the encyclopedia?  I highly doubt you could convince me to
agree with that.

Anthony


body:
On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> Another one of the things I pride myself on is being careful when it
> comes to creation. I may not create much articles, but the ones I do
> make NEVER face deletion because I make sure they indicate notability
> and have sufficient reliable references. AFD wouldn't even be as
> overcrowded as it is now if everyone did the same.
>
> Mgm

Sure, AFD wouldn't be as overcrowded, but the encyclopedia wouldn't be
nearly as interesting or useful.


body:
On 12/10/05, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/12/05, Brian Haws <brian at bhaws.com> wrote:
>
> (...)
>
> > Writing from the peanut gallery, I think this is a great idea, it plants the
> > seed in new editors heads that those components are an intergral part of a
> > well formatted article. Where does it go from here?
>
> 1 - Find out if MediaWiki can handle automatically filling a new edit
> box with boilerplate text, preferably able to restrict the function to
> the main namespace.

It used to insert the contents of $newarticletext (which is now
specified by [[mediawiki:newarticletext]]) into the edit box for the
new article.  This was changed so it inserts this text above the edit
box.  I assume it wouldn't be hard to add a new variable
($newarticleeditbox?) and put this in the edit box.  Here's the
relevant code from February 2005:

                        if ( 'edit' == $action ) {
                                wfProfileOut( $fname );
                                return ''; # was "newarticletext", now
moved above the box)
                        }

I don't think this checks whether or not this is in the article
namespace though, that'd have to be added.

It'd likely be a really easy feature to add, and by default
newarticleeditbox (or newarticleboilerplate, or whatever) would be
blank, and it'd be up to the individual projects to decide whether or
not to fill it.

Anthony


body:
On 12/11/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> Here's the
> relevant code from February 2005:
>
>                         if ( 'edit' == $action ) {
>                                 wfProfileOut( $fname );
>                                 return ''; # was "newarticletext", now
> moved above the box)
>                         }
>
Oh yeah, that'd be phase3/includes/Article.php.  I just cvs updated,
and it's changed:

                        if ( 'edit' == $action ) {
                                wfProfileOut( $fname );

                                # If requested, preload some text.
                                $text=$this->getPreloadedText($preload);

                                # We used to put
MediaWiki:Newarticletext here if
                                # $text was empty at this point.
                                # This is now shown above the edit box instead.
                                return $text;
                        }

Not sure what getPreloadedText is.  Maybe this feature is already in
there.  Still doesn't seem to check namespace, though.

If not, I could make a patch if the developers want, but it's been a
while since I've hacked mediawiki code and it's such a simple change,
so it's probably better if they did it themselves.

Anthony


from_name: Jimmy Wales

body:
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
> How about this for an experiment: turn off article creation _and_
> deletion for a while? Freeze the table of contents (not that we have
> one)...
>
> So that all anyone could possibly do is to edit existing articles?
>
> It would force everyone to pay attention to the articles that exist
> already, and with 857,833 of them you'd think people could find
> something worth their attention.
>
> With deletion being impossible, AfD would become unnecessary... as
> would DRV. So, that should make one faction happy. On the other hand,
> there would be no opportunity to add subtrivial topics. (Or trivial
> topics, or significant topics). That should make another faction happy.

This could in theory be a part of the (is it a joke, perhaps not
anymore?) concept of a "working vacation day" on January 15th.
Fantasize that for a single day, we turn off anon editing, we turn off
account creation, turn off article creation and deletion.

Freeze the table of contents, freeze the staff, and have a day of
"cleaning up" without all the noise. :-)

--Jimbo


from_name: J.F. de Wolff

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unsuitable external links

body:
For the last several weeks there has been a low-grade edit war,
spanning numerous articles, over the suitability of one particular
site in the "external links" section. The site in question is
http://www.whale.to - a privately maintained collection of
information not limited to vaccination and basically
critical/suspicious of basically everything. A brief look on the site
will reveal it is not the voice of any organisation, professional
body, or even some collective, but one person collecting extremist
material. Whether the site has any significant following is unclear.
The front page boasts a 1 million hits/year Alexa ranking.
The pattern is predictable: a small group of anonymous users inserts
the link (into [[chickenpox]], [[shaken baby syndrome]], [[MMR
vaccine]] etc). Several registered editors remove these links. One
user, [[User:Ombudsman]] systematically puts the links back. The
cycle then repeats itself.

This has gone through RFC twice, first in an RFC directed at
Ombudsman ([[WP:RFC/Ombudsman]]) and now as an article RFC at [[MMR
vaccine]]. Leaving out comments by anonymous users, most are in
agreement that it is a very poor resource and has no merits over
links to organisations usually present in these articles. Ombudsman
is not participating in this discussion. There have been personal
attacks from anons, and of course the whine of "censorship" and
"suppression of views" (manifestly not the cases as other critical
links are not removed).

I am taking this to WikiEN-L because I am not sure how to proceed.
RFC has been unsuccesful. I'm a bit hesitant to take this to RFAr.
Does anyone have an idea how we could best arrive at solid consensus
here? What constitutes a "suitable" external link? Do we give in to a
small band of anons pushing a link? And if the link is deemed
unsuitable, is there any way for automatically blocking the link
through the spamlist?

Jfdwolff

------------------------------------
    jfdwolff at doctors.org.uk
------------------------------------

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/194 - Release Date: 07/12/2005


body:
So this all started as a fantasy/joke of mine in IRC, but I want to say
that so many people have responded favorably that I'm supportive of the
concept.

One great reason to do all of this is to shake up the cobwebs in our
thinking.  A lot of our processes are fantastic, organically evolved
over time, and shouldn't be changed.  But they aren't all perfect and we
need to always remain experimental -- it's a wiki after all.

David Gerard wrote:
> OK. I suggest that some time soon (early January, say) we hold an
> Article Improvement Week.
>
>   * No new articles to be created.
>   * AFD is closed for business - no deletions, no nominations.
> (Copyright violations, gross libel etc. can be zapped as usual.)
>   * You can still work on new stuff in your userspace, but please don't
> move it to article space. (How or if to enforce this to be determined.)
>
> A week should be long enough to get some effect and short enough not to
> frustrate people and make them go elsewhere because they want to write
> stuff (hence the userspace getout).
>
> Effects I expect at the end of the week:
>
>   * Some article polishing.
>   * More people practiced in article polishing.
>   * A flood of new articles out of userspace. Hopefully better ones.
> People will also treat this as "work on those new articles you were
> thinking about" week. That's fine too.
>   * A consequent flood of AFDs, but hopefully not as much because the
> articles will have been worked on for a week!
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
I found out what preload is.  See
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noarticlehere&action=edit&preload=User:Anthony_DiPierro/preload

So, in pseudocode (I don't know mediawiki), all that'd need to be done
is change:

return $text;

to:

if ($text!='') {
  return $text;
} else if (namespace is article namespace) {
  return $newarticleboilerplate;
} else {
  return '';
}

On 12/11/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 12/11/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > Here's the
> > relevant code from February 2005:
> >
> >                         if ( 'edit' == $action ) {
> >                                 wfProfileOut( $fname );
> >                                 return ''; # was "newarticletext", now
> > moved above the box)
> >                         }
> >
> Oh yeah, that'd be phase3/includes/Article.php.  I just cvs updated,
> and it's changed:
>
>                         if ( 'edit' == $action ) {
>                                 wfProfileOut( $fname );
>
>                                 # If requested, preload some text.
>                                 $text=$this->getPreloadedText($preload);
>
>                                 # We used to put
> MediaWiki:Newarticletext here if
>                                 # $text was empty at this point.
>                                 # This is now shown above the edit box instead.
>                                 return $text;
>                         }
>
> Not sure what getPreloadedText is.  Maybe this feature is already in
> there.  Still doesn't seem to check namespace, though.
>
> If not, I could make a patch if the developers want, but it's been a
> while since I've hacked mediawiki code and it's such a simple change,
> so it's probably better if they did it themselves.
>
> Anthony
>


body:
On 12/11/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> > This could in theory be a part of the (is it a joke, perhaps not
> > anymore?) concept of a "working vacation day" on January 15th.
> > Fantasize that for a single day, we turn off anon editing, we turn off
> > account creation, turn off article creation and deletion.
> > Freeze the table of contents, freeze the staff, and have a day of
> > "cleaning up" without all the noise. :-)
>
>
> Make it a week - second or third week of January.
>
> As proposed elsewhere in the thread, allow article creation in
> userspace. 'Cos you *know* saying "you can't create articles" will just
> make people want to create articles ;-) (Expect a flood of stubs the
> week before!)
>
>
> - d.

I would think all namespaces other than article namespace would allow
creation.  New talk pages are certainly OK.  Same with new user pages.
 New project namespace pages, well, we can soft-ban them.

Anthony


body:
On 12/10/05, Keith Old <keithold at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the idea of a heavily promoted Article Improvement Week is a useful
> one.
>
> However, there is no reason to turn off AfD. Indeed, often the reason that
> articles are in AfD is that the topic is notable but the article is crap for
> various reasons including:
>
> * short and lacking context;
>
> * bogus articles on legitimate topics;
>
> * lacking references.
>
> My main focus in AfD is looking for articles that can be improved and turned
> into encyclopedia articles. There is no reason that AfD cannot form part of
> Article Improvement Week.
>
For one week Articles for Deletion is renamed Articles for Improvement
(symbolically, if actually moving the page would be technically
problematic), and there's no voting or page destruction, just
discussion of how to improve the article :).

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Turn off AfD

body:
On 12/11/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/11/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > On 12/11/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 12/11/05, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > G'day Anthony,
> > > >
> > > > > On 12/9/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>On 12/9/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > > >>>Yes, you've confused what I've said.  I think we should add more
> > > > >>>*objective* criteria to the speedy deletion candidates, not
> > > > >>>*subjective* ones.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>If totaly objective criteria don't turn up much outside maths
> > > > >
> > > > > I find it hard to believe that we can't come up with objective
> > > > > criteria for articles that everyone agrees should be deleted.
> > > > > Verifiability, for instance, is an objective criterion.
> > > >
> > > > Verifiability is necessary, but not sufficient, for an encyclopaedic
> > > > article.  But not everyone agrees on that (IIRC, you yourself have gone
> > > > to great --- perhaps even "extreme" --- lengths to show your disagreement).
> > >
> > > Verifiability is in some ways quite a harsh requirement. It was what
> > > got [[yoism]] deleted.
> > >
> > > --
> > > geni
> >
> > I'm not familiar with that case.  It seems like you're saying that
> > there is non-verifiable information that should nonetheless be
> > included in the encyclopedia?  I highly doubt you could convince me to
> > agree with that.
> >
> > Anthony
>
> No. I'm just saying that verifiable thing can be a lot harsher than
> many people think.
>
> You can read all about it here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yoism
>
> And yes this did go through deletion review as well.
>
> --
> geni

Hmm, I'd say an article in the Boston Globe means there are certainly
verifiable sources which can be used to create an article on Yoism.
Verifiability may have been one of the reasons you gave for the
nomination, but it doesn't seem to be a valid one.

Anthony


body:
On 12/11/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
> > For one week Articles for Deletion is renamed Articles for Improvement
> > (symbolically, if actually moving the page would be technically
> > problematic), and there's no voting or page destruction, just
> > discussion of how to improve the article :).
>
>
> Have you *looked* through AFD recently? I just looked at the past six
> days of nominations.
>
> *shudder*
>
> We really do have mountains of crap that must die as soon as possible.
>
> I saw one nomination that really annoyed me - [[List of Scientology
> centers]] - which prompted me to comment that nominators should have to
> bother notifying the relevant wikiproject. 'Cos it's not a great
> article, but it's not deletable IMO, it's highly improvable (e.g. I
> could pepper it up with a pile of my own photos) and it's useful to the
> project.
>
>
> - d.

We used to have a separate page just for "lists for deletion".  Lists
aren't really ever encyclopedia articles, and the standards for them
should be different than the standards for articles.


body:
On 12/11/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> > One great reason to do all of this is to shake up the cobwebs in our
> > thinking.  A lot of our processes are fantastic, organically evolved
> > over time, and shouldn't be changed.  But they aren't all perfect and we
> > need to always remain experimental -- it's a wiki after all.
>
>
> Yes. One thing that pisses me off about Wikipedia is the committee
> committees to have a vote on having a committee to vote to ascertain
> consensus on having a committee before you can actually bloody *do*
> anything.
>
> (Which is one of the things I like about Uncyclopedia: blatant admin
> fascism! MUWAHAHAHAHA. Excuse me.)
>
> I vaguely recall workplace studies where changing *anything* increased
> productivity - it wasn't the new setting, it was the fact of change.
>
> So, experiment suggestions so far:
>
> 1. Switch off anon article creation - in progress.
> 2. Prefill text for new article creation.
> 3. Article Improvement Week.
> 4. Turn off AFD for (a week/a month/ever).
>
> Any others I missed?
>
>
> - d.

I proposed requring editors that aren't logged in to enter text into
the comment field, when editing the article namespace.  This would be
done with the intention of extending it to all non-minor edits to the
article namespace if the experiment succeeded.

In fact, of the 3 non-implemented experiments above, I think this one
would be the least controversial.

Anthony


from_name: Angela

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Logo switching

body:
On 12/10/05, James R. Johnson <modean52 at comcast.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>             I need to switch the logo on the Wiktionary, but I'm not sure on
> how to do that.  There's a file called Wiki.png, and it's protected.  But
> what do I do after that?

It depends which language Wiktionary you're talking about, but
usually, an admin can just upload a new file called "Wiki.png" and it
will overwrite the existing one.

There is also a Wiktionary mailing list at
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l

Angela.


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] Jack Sarfatti makes trouble again

body:
The whole Siegenthaler controversy seems to have emboldened all sorts
of people with a gripe against Wikipedia or its editors to come out
of the woodwork and start making trouble, even if they've previously
simmered down.  Now, Jack Sarfatti, who previously objected to the
content of the article on him but ultimately calmed down, seems to be
back on the warpath, and he seems to have decided that I'm his
"Public Enemy #1".  He left these comments on my user page:

| Stop your slander of me and stop vandalizing the page on me. The
| New York Times article on Siegenthaler applies to you. You are a
| political enemy of mine. You are a Liberal with a Mental Disorder.
| Cease your defamation of me. Jack Sarfatti

He also left comments on the talk page of the Sarfatti article, and e-
mailed me.  Isn't it defamation on his own part to allege mental
disorders on my part, or at least practicing psychiatric medicine
without a license?  (No, I'm not making legal threats against him,
just making an observation.)  And making (false) inferences about my
political orientation is unwarranted.

Here are the diffs of my recent edits to Sarfatti's article; did I do
anything out of line?  Sarfatti's edits removed information, and were
often formatted in an incoherent manner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Sarfatti&diff=prev&oldid=30877798
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Sarfatti&diff=prev&oldid=30929597

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

David Gerard wrote:

> So, experiment suggestions so far:
>
>
> 1. Switch off anon article creation - in progress. 2. Prefill text
> for new article creation. 3. Article Improvement Week. 4. Turn off
> AFD for (a week/a month/ever).
>
> Any others I missed?
>
Pure wiki deletion. :-)  I know it has become a joke for me to insert
that into every conversation now, but as long as you're going to be
turning off AFD for a certain amount of time, you could experiment
with replacements.

- -Ryan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDnD6v6MKb8lYmCtcRAqbtAKC0vVWL4Fo7hguB83RNCkvPdfBxXwCgmN7m
JmvR53Any8Kv/NjlWX2w+n0=
=fgM2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
1. Switch off anon article creation - in progress.
2. Prefill text for new article creation.
3. Article Improvement Week.
4. Turn off AFD for (a week/a month/ever).
5. Give admins more freedom over deletion.
6. Require "anons" to comment when editing.
7. Pure Wiki Deletion
8. Speedy delete unsourced articles.

8 was another proposal I made.  Any article which was created in the
last 48 hours and contains no external references whatsoever is a
candidate for speedy deletion.

Anthony

On 12/11/05, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> David Gerard wrote:
>
> > So, experiment suggestions so far:
> >
> >
> > 1. Switch off anon article creation - in progress. 2. Prefill text
> > for new article creation. 3. Article Improvement Week. 4. Turn off
> > AFD for (a week/a month/ever).
> >
> > Any others I missed?
> >
> Pure wiki deletion. :-)  I know it has become a joke for me to insert
> that into every conversation now, but as long as you're going to be
> turning off AFD for a certain amount of time, you could experiment
> with replacements.
>
> - -Ryan
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFDnD6v6MKb8lYmCtcRAqbtAKC0vVWL4Fo7hguB83RNCkvPdfBxXwCgmN7m
> JmvR53Any8Kv/NjlWX2w+n0=
> =fgM2
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>