No edit summary |
Reviving this, more rewriting to remove "ipse dixit" style |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
:''As per [[Wikipedia:Edit this proposal]], you should [[Wikipedia:be bold|be bold]] and [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAMEE}}|action=edit}} edit it].'' |
|||
⚫ | |||
:''This proposal originally spawned from the [[Wikipedia_talk:Preliminary Deletion|discussion]] on [[Wikipedia:Preliminary deletion|Preliminary Deletion]]. It never really got a spotlight, and recently it has been suggested that giving it some wider exposure might have merit.'' |
|||
⚫ | It's [[Yet Another]] attempt at streamlining our overburdened, unscalable deletion process: countdown deletion. The basic idea is that articles that start off as rubbish are put on probation: if nobody comes to improve them in seven days, they're out. Do read on! I am ''not'' proposing that articles should be deleted "by default". I consider myself an inclusionist—so inclusionists, it may not be the deletionist conspiracy it seems to be on first reading. Hear me out. |
||
== Basic process == |
== Basic process == |
||
Line 14: | Line 18: | ||
== Obvious objections and their rebuttals == |
== Obvious objections and their rebuttals == |
||
I'll head off obvious objections now. |
|||
*What if people use sockpuppets to get around the single-user-editing policy? |
*What if people use sockpuppets to get around the single-user-editing policy? |
||
:Sockpuppeteering is, as always, illegal. This policy is not meant to keep out dedicated trolls and vandals, only to lighten the load of VfD. |
:Sockpuppeteering is, as always, illegal. This policy is not meant to keep out dedicated trolls and vandals, only to lighten the load of VfD. |
Revision as of 15:31, 3 April 2005
- As per Wikipedia:Edit this proposal, you should be bold and .
- This proposal originally spawned from the discussion on Preliminary Deletion. It never really got a spotlight, and recently it has been suggested that giving it some wider exposure might have merit.
It's Yet Another attempt at streamlining our overburdened, unscalable deletion process: countdown deletion. The basic idea is that articles that start off as rubbish are put on probation: if nobody comes to improve them in seven days, they're out. Do read on! I am not proposing that articles should be deleted "by default". I consider myself an inclusionist—so inclusionists, it may not be the deletionist conspiracy it seems to be on first reading. Hear me out.
Basic process
Only new articles can be listed for countdown deletion. To make that specific: only articles that, since their creation, have been edited by one user only can be listed for countdown deletion. To list an article for countdown deletion, a template is added to the top. Countdown articles cannot be taken to VfD. An article that is a speedy delete may be turned into a countdown, but the reverse is not allowed (read "people should be corrected if they do this, and an admin should step in if serious contention is involved"). Removing the countdown notice isn't allowed, and if it's done in bad faith, also vandalism.
Now, what is countdown deletion? There is no separate talk page. Instead, on the article discussion page, people are to discuss ways for improving the article so it no longer qualifies for deletion, and implement them—the familiar Wikipedia editing we all know and love. If, after seven days, the article has not been improved in any significant way (note: I am going to define "significant" below, don't sweat it) it is deleted, regardless of anything. An article that survives countdown can never be listed for it again, and has to be taken to VfD. An article that does not survive countdown and is recreated verbatim is vandalism. An article that does not survive countdown and is recreated with new content is just that: a new article, that can be countdowned.
What constitutes a "significant" improvement? That's easy. After the seven days expire, then either:
- Nobody (except the original author) has edited the article since the countdown started (ignoring vandalism). Delete passes.
- There have been second-party edits. You vote for a period of three days on whether the article has significantly improved since the countdown started.
In the case of a vote, nobody has to supply a reason, though it's appreciated. You get one vote, and it's either Improved or Not improved. There will of course be policy to guide you: spelling, grammar, wikification, categorization, adding or removing stub notices, in short anything that would fall under cleanup, is not significant. Writing brilliant prose, providing context and adding sources is. The vote must be overwhelmingly Not improved. If it is, the article is deleted. If not, then not.
Policy should also make clear that you only vote whether the article has improved since the countdown started. No discussing whether the topic is "notable" or not (if you think it's not, abstain, wait for the countdown to pass and, if it survives, put it on VfD. Face it—notability will never become so objective that you can speedily delete articles for it, in any fashion). No discussing whether it is a dictdef or not (if it still is after the countdown, vote Not improved). No discussing whether it's "too POV" or "vanity" (if it was and still is, irredeemably so, again vote Not improved).
Obvious objections and their rebuttals
- What if people use sockpuppets to get around the single-user-editing policy?
- Sockpuppeteering is, as always, illegal. This policy is not meant to keep out dedicated trolls and vandals, only to lighten the load of VfD.
- Shouldn't we make a difference between registered and unregistered users somewhere?
- No. This goes against the grain of an open Wiki. Anons may be disallowed from voting if there is enough concern—they can still improve the article, which is the proper way of dealing with it anyway.
- Aren't inclusionists just always going to vote Improved at the end? Aren't deletionists always going to vote Not improved? Why is this different from preliminary deletion?
- Because it's embedded in much more obvious criteria. Whether or not an article has been improved since it was created is much easier to judge (and much more likely to be judged fairly) than whether an article should be kept according to your interpretation of current policy. No deletion policy can ever fully protect against zealots from either side, but this one is much less controversial. We all know good articles when we see them. Only the most dishonest of inclusionists would vote Improved for an article that's clearly still crap. Only the most dishonest of deletionists would vote Not improved just to get an article out that people are honestly improving. This is the baseline; if you can't keep people honest here, forget about any other deletion policy.
- What if only the original author makes significant improvements? According to you, it would still be deleted!
- Yep. First of all, the original author would have a ludicrously simple way of sabotaging the process if this were allowed—people could be required to vote even when it's clearly not necessary. Second, you have to get the community to care about an article that's pending deletion. That's the whole point. If nobody else can be bothered to put in even the simplest of edits, then it's probably because nobody wants this article to exist. (Note: the countdown header should point to places where you can ask people to come and contribute, so as to not be harsh to newbies. Inclusionists should consider it their duty to patrol Wikipedia:Articles on countdown deletion and do something useful, as opposed to just preparing for yet another unfounded Keep vote on VfD.)
- According to this, a countdown delete will always take either seven or ten days. That's way longer than even most VfDs. Isn't this just going to be an even bigger burden?
- No, for two reasons. The first week has to be spent on improving the article. In the case of advertising, hoaxes, obvious vanity and unexpandable substubs, the article is unlikely to ever be edited again and will get deleted painlessly. You can just look at it, shrug, and move on, no resources wasted. In the case of political speech, what could be better than NPOVing it? If you can't, then leave it alone—if everyone does because it's beyond saving, then again, no resources wasted.
- Second, see above: after the vote, the article is either definitely deleted if we all agree that no improvement has taken place, or there is at least some improvement and deletion (or even a VfD listing) is by no means certain. In both cases, there is definite progress. VfD listings can just be navel-gazed to death without anyone lifting a finger to do something constructive for the offending article.
If you care, forget what's there, get off your ass and start to share.(Ugh, that's horrible. Forget I said that.)
- I see a problem with the editing rule. Some cases of vandalism aren't clear. Is a revert war vandalism? What if, after the revert war, the article's still the same? Is it deleted?
- This is actually part of the vandalism policies. In general, you should not revert anything that, assuming good faith, isn't clear vandalism (just because someone writes something you don't consider an improvement, that's no reason for wholesale reverting). That goes double for articles on countdown: reverting to the original with the explicit goal of getting the article to fail countdown, rather than helping to improve it, is a Very Bad thing to do. You better have a damn good reason for reverting things on countdown, or the admins are gonna come-a gunnin' for ya.
- "The vote must be overwhelmingly Not improved" looks harsh. It should be a simple majority vote.
- Maybe. This idea's not carved in stone. Maybe the length of the editing and voting periods should be different, too.
- This idea looks much too simple to work. I want lots more rules!
- Good for you. I don't think anything complicated has any chance of actually working, though, let alone be accepted by consensus.
Give my idea a hard time—please! JRM 00:28, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)