Para obtener más información, consulte las preguntas y respuestas en la página de discusión. Para obtener material relacionado, consulte el /Archivo, el resumen de la tabla a continuación o la página de discusión .
Plantilla de problemas de BLP
Resumen de la tabla
Resumen de la Fase I
Resumen de cierre de la fase I
Esta ha sido una de las solicitudes de comentarios más grandes y complejas que se han recibido en la comunidad en mucho tiempo, con 470 editores que han producido más de 200.000 palabras de comentarios. La mayoría de las opiniones y comentarios son claramente el resultado de una reflexión reflexiva por parte de los editores que se han tomado el tiempo de informarse sobre los temas, y todos deberían ser aplaudidos por considerar este asunto seriamente. Quienes han participado tienen en mente los mejores intereses de la enciclopedia y del proyecto, y hay mucho mérito, basado en la política, la práctica y la practicidad, en cada una de las principales posiciones presentadas. También es importante señalar que la mayoría de quienes participaron lo hicieron relativamente temprano en la RfC, y es poco probable que hayan revisado algunas de las opiniones y propuestas posteriores; por lo tanto, no es posible evaluar con precisión el consenso sobre estas opiniones. Después de leer esta RfC, puedo decir categóricamente que los wikipedistas están dedicados al desarrollo continuo de una enciclopedia completa, precisa y en constante mejora; sin embargo, hay opiniones muy diversas sobre cómo se puede lograr esto de la mejor manera.
Parece haber un amplio consenso en cuanto a que:
Los BLP no referenciados son sólo un pequeño segmento de BLP potencialmente o realmente problemáticos.
Hay razones para poner especial énfasis en las fuentes de los BLP, y en que esta categoría de artículos es más sensible a la inexactitud que otros (aunque las opiniones sobre el grado en que son más sensibles fueron objeto de un espectro de opiniones más amplio).
Las decisiones de eliminación deben tomarse con participación humana y no deben depender únicamente de métodos técnicos.
Los creadores de artículos, los wikiproyectos dedicados a mejorar los BLP sin fuentes y los wikiproyectos dedicados a diversos temas deberían ser advertidos de la existencia de dichos artículos y ser alentados (y apoyados) a buscar fuentes para ellos. Varias opiniones discutieron métodos para difundir esta información, algunos de los cuales ya se han puesto en práctica, y no hubo una oposición significativa a esta posición.
En relación con esto, hubo un debate sobre si debería realizarse una campaña significativa en todo el sitio para involucrar a un segmento más grande de la comunidad editorial en un proyecto de obtención de material de BLP, que tampoco encontró una oposición significativa.
Un número menor de personas señaló la dificultad de mantener y mejorar una enciclopedia en constante expansión, mientras que el número de colaboradores regularmente activos se ha mantenido relativamente estático en los últimos años; esta opinión, aunque no fue muy discutida, no encontró una oposición significativa.
En este mismo sentido, otros señalaron que las expectativas de calidad han cambiado significativamente a lo largo de los años y que no había un método sencillo para que los editores identificaran los artículos que habían creado o editado significativamente y que requerían referencias. Los editores prolíficos que han permanecido activos durante varios años están descubriendo ahora hasta qué punto se les pide que mejoren y hagan referencias a los BLP sin fuentes, muchos de los cuales fueron creados hace algunos años.
Las tres principales posiciones presentadas fueron:
Eliminación masiva de todos los artículos identificados como biografías de personas vivas que no tenían fuentes de referencia, con diferentes opiniones sobre cómo se lograría esto. La mayoría de las opiniones relacionadas implicaban que todos los artículos identificados como biografías de personas vivas que no tenían fuentes de referencia se eliminarían en un período muy breve (días o semanas), con un intento mínimo o nulo de mejorar los artículos.
No hay cambios en las prácticas de eliminación actuales ni prácticas de eliminación especiales para los BLP, y la mayoría de las opiniones relacionadas respaldan la obtención de los BLP no referenciados o, como mínimo, su revisión para garantizar que se hayan categorizado correctamente.
Procesos especiales de PROD para BLP, con opiniones muy diversas sobre la duración en que los artículos permanecerán estimulados, los criterios para su desproducción y la cantidad de artículos que se estimulan en un momento determinado.
En relación con estos tres puntos de vista, existían preocupaciones sobre cómo gestionar mejor la revisión de BLP sin fuentes para (a) garantizar que realmente no tuvieran fuentes, (b) evitar la sobrecarga de los procesos relevantes y (c) priorizar qué artículos (subgrupos de) serían revisados, con plazos flexibles o estrictos para varios puntos de control y un objetivo claro para la finalización de las revisiones.
Consenso
De estas tres amplias categorías de opiniones, hay un consenso sorprendentemente claro de que alguna forma de BLP-PROD es el método preferido para abordar los BLP sin fuentes . La mayoría de la oposición a cada una de las opiniones que proponían una variación de BLP-PROD se relacionaba con el tiempo durante el cual se revisaría un artículo (que variaba de dos días a más de un mes) o algún otro factor específico de esa propuesta. Una minoría notable pero pequeña se opuso al concepto básico.
También hubo un sólido consenso en cuanto a que se debería desarrollar un proceso separado para abordar los BLP recién creados sin referencias, a fin de evitar una mayor acumulación de BLP sin fuentes; sin embargo, menos editores hicieron comentarios específicos sobre este punto, que surgió en varias opiniones.
Desarrollar un consenso sobre los detalles de un proceso BLP-PROD, más críticamente sobre la duración de un BLP-PROD.
Desarrollar un cronograma con objetivos específicos para garantizar que se revise y mejore o se aborde de alguna otra manera el atraso actual de BLP sin fuentes. Los factores a considerar incluyen cómo priorizar subgrupos de artículos dentro del proceso, el desarrollo y la centralización de herramientas y recursos para que los editores identifiquen y mejoren los artículos, y métodos para involucrar a la comunidad editorial más amplia.
Desarrollar un consenso sobre los estándares para los BLP recién creados. Los factores a considerar incluyen herramientas y procesos para respaldar a los nuevos editores, la integración del proceso con el nuevo Page Patrol y el marco temporal para la obtención de nuevos artículos.
Está claro que nuestra comunidad de editores ha comenzado a abordar las cuestiones planteadas en esta convocatoria de propuestas, ya que se han desarrollado varias herramientas para ayudar a los editores a identificar y mejorar estos artículos; el número de BLP sin fuentes ya se ha reducido en más del 10%. El esfuerzo continuo para involucrar y apoyar a un segmento aún más amplio de la comunidad debe considerarse una prioridad importante; en la convocatoria de propuestas se han analizado varias herramientas de comunicación.
Por favor, envíe cualquier pregunta o comentario sobre este tema a la página de discusión adyacente para centralizar la discusión. Este tema se envía bajo mi propia firma, independientemente de cualquier otro cargo o permiso que tenga. Risker ( discusión ) 03:59 7 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No veo que haya consenso sobre los pasos a seguir. Se debería retractar de este cierre y posponer la idea de un nuevo Prod hasta que se logre un consenso. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:43, 16 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
WP:POT Okip 13:53 20 febrero 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eso no tiene ningún sentido, lo que probablemente no debería sorprenderme viniendo de ti. No soy yo quien ha estado publicando artículos breves sobre este tema. Por lo tanto, no estoy seguro de que entiendas lo que significa WP:POT . Scott, también conocido como UnitAnode 02:31, 22 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fase II
Redacción del proceso BLP PROD
Establecer los detalles de un proceso de desarrollo de BLP . Probablemente debería basarse en la visión de Jehochman (la variación de ese tema que tuvo, por lejos, el mayor apoyo) como base para la discusión. Sin embargo, ya se ha redactado un proceso de este tipo en Wikipedia:Deletion of unreferenced BLPs (Eliminación de BLP no referenciados ) , y trasladar la discusión allí para desarrollar ese proceso propuesto ahorraría tiempo y energía, además de dejar más espacio para la discusión aquí en esta RFC de los otros temas. Rd232 discusión 11:43, 7 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
El ritmo de trabajo debe ser razonable para que los editores interesados tengan la oportunidad de añadir fuentes. El volumen de supresiones propuestas no debe ser excesivamente grande. El debate puede determinar cuál es un ritmo razonable.
Después de cinco o siete días, cualquier artículo etiquetado de esta manera puede eliminarse o trasladarse a la incubadora de artículos de Wikipedia si muestra resultados prometedores.
No se deben eliminar los avisos de producción ni se deben recuperar los artículos, a menos que se agreguen las referencias adecuadas . Cualquiera que realice una desproducción o recuperación masiva sin agregar las referencias presentes corre el riesgo de ser bloqueado por interrupción .
Todos los editores están invitados a participar en esta campaña de limpieza de BLP.
Las principales objeciones a esto fueron:
El proceso WP:PROD no debe modificarse, por lo que se debe utilizar otro nombre
Está abierto al abuso
No se especifica el cronograma
No se debe realizar una prueba sin intentar obtener la fuente del artículo.
Los editores de artículos deben ser notificados de una eliminación pendiente
La calidad de las referencias que se agregarán no está clara
Algunos editores no están de acuerdo con la eliminación como solución en absoluto.
Será necesario abordar estas objeciones para crear una política que cuente con un amplio respaldo y, como sugiere Rd232, Wikipedia:Eliminación de BLP sin referencias es probablemente el mejor lugar para continuar con esto. Kevin ( discusión ) 22:29 7 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Proceso PROD nuevo vs. existente.
Yo estaría a favor de utilizar el proceso PROD existente, con la flexibilidad para que cualquier editor pueda eliminar uno o varios PROD de buena fe. Al igual que el proceso PROD tradicional, el siguiente paso es que el nominador del PROD vea si el problema todavía existe y envíe el artículo a AfD si no existe. Si hay un consenso general para utilizar un proceso PROD, entonces la eliminación masiva de PROD se consideraría disruptiva, tal como lo es hoy. Jclemens ( discusión ) 04:34 8 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
WT:PROD estuvo más cerca de ser rechazado que de ser aceptado, ya que cambiar PROD de la manera necesaria (para evitar la eliminación de la etiqueta sin agregar fuentes) es totalmente contrario al espíritu de PROD. Sugiero que el camino a seguir sería incluir Wikipedia:Eliminación de BLP sin referencias en WP:CENT y desarrollar ese proceso en base a la discusión de la Fase I (con la que es muy compatible), dejando abierta la posibilidad de que el proceso así desarrollado pueda ser fusionado como una sección especial de PROD. (Dudo que eso sea aceptable, pero el punto es que no es necesario resolverlo ahora). Rd232 discusión 16:59, 8 febrero 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
El período de espera de siete días es ridículamente corto, es lo mismo que cero. Los editores que crean BLP sin fuentes *de buena fe* probablemente sean novatos que aún no han leído las pautas, no se puede esperar que revisen sus listas de seguimiento todos los días, no entenderán bien lo que significa la publicación y no podrán responder en ese período de tiempo. Por lo tanto, el manejo de esos BLP tendrá que ser realizado por editores experimentados que estén dispuestos a tomar tiempo de sus proyectos wiki personales para hacer servicio comunitario. Fuente o muerte es básicamente una situación de rehenes: "o alguien hace lo que quiero que se haga, o mataré el trabajo de un novato al azar". Dado que el etiquetador debe al menos leer el artículo antes de etiquetarlo, podemos asumir que las páginas de ataque se han eliminado rápidamente y que se han eliminado los contenidos potencialmente problemáticos. En ese caso, permitir que el BLP viva durante otro mes u otro año será un riesgo insignificante, evitará muchos malos sentimientos y, en realidad, significará *menos* trabajo para todos al final. Todo lo mejor, -- Jorge Stolfi ( discusión ) 17:49 8 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Los novatos que realmente crean un artículo tienden a volver y ver qué sucede, creo, en una escala de tiempo corta de horas/días, cuando se aplicarían las etiquetas BLP-PROD. En cualquier caso, no se trata simplemente de "obtener o eliminar": los artículos también pueden incubarse, y el creador recibe una notificación. Los artículos permanecerán al menos un mes en la incubadora, y no hay razón por la que no podamos acordar un período de tiempo más largo para los BLP-PROD incubados. Rd232 discusión 21:28, 8 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bueno, si la tasa de solicitud es alta, creo que algunas personas, incluidos los editores establecidos, simplemente incluirán fuentes falsas o agregarán una referencia al final de un párrafo, pero solo cubrirá la última parte de la oración. La gente intenta esto todo el tiempo en FAR y espera que un revisor simplemente vea una cita al final del párrafo y asuma que todo está explicado, cuando generalmente no es así. Y es suficiente para atrapar a mucha gente. No me sorprendería si un montón de personas lo hicieran en todos los demás lugares también, especialmente si luego van y citan un libro que no está en inglés y nadie podría darse cuenta. Una vez incluso vi a alguien hacer referencia a una FA no citada haciendo referencia circular a una copia de Wikipedia en algún lugar y, a veces, incluso cortando y pegando un copyvio para resolver el BLP sin fuentes. A menos que la gente vaya a lo básico, las reglas son bastante irrelevantes, seamos francos, muchas reglas en Wikipedia solo se usan de manera selectiva para operar un sistema de castas; Por ejemplo, un tipo (administrador) que borra información de fuentes que no le gusta y cita a BLP a pesar de que la fuente era un periódico, porque la información no le convenía, porque tenía un peso indebido o lo que sea, sea cierto o no, luego van y critican a un tipo que oculta información negativa no citada, por ejemplo, la conducta criminal de un político de la oposición. La gente no debería dejarse engañar por las métricas, como lo han hecho muchas personas y continúan haciendo carreras en wiki manipulando las estadísticas y tratando de verse mejor. YellowMonkey ( vota en la encuesta de fotos de Southern Stars ) 07:38, 12 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Por favor, gente, quítense de encima la idea de que borrar artículos, borrar INFORMACIÓN ÚTIL, es una solución a todo. Como dijo Jorge, lean el artículo. Si dudan de la veracidad del contenido o de las fuentes, busquen otras fuentes, miren otros artículos. Si es así, AGREGUEN las referencias ustedes mismos. Tenemos que asumir que cualquiera que haya encontrado el camino a esta discusión tiene suficiente experiencia en edición de Wikipedia como para saber cómo hacerlo. Si no pueden encontrar nada, entonces probablemente haya algo incorrecto en el artículo. Publiquen el artículo por razones de NOTORIA, a través de AfD, públicamente en el ÚNICO LUGAR que ya está ahí para que la gente vea, analice y discuta artículos problemáticos. En la semana en que este artículo pase por todo ese análisis, un montón de personas lo leerán, intentarán obtener las fuentes y no morirá innecesariamente por la negligencia de un editor novato. El proceso de AfD es demasiado rápido y abusivo como es, pero al menos tiene alguna oportunidad en público. Después de dos meses de esta RFC, debería quedar claro para cualquiera, excepto para los increíblemente tontos, que no existe una solución draconiana mejor que la que ya existe. Lo que hay que cambiar son los hábitos, la pereza de los que se quejan. En lugar de tomarse 5 segundos para editar en un PROD que podría llevar a la eliminación del artículo, dedique un minuto y busque la fuente. Ha salvado el artículo, ha salvado la controversia. Si la gente hiciera estas cosas en lugar de inventar más capas de administradores abusivos, nos quedaría un puñado relativo de artículos problemáticos que pueden pasar por la picadora de carne del sistema, como los artículos de vanidad, frivolidad inútil y artículos de Stephen Colbert . Trackinfo ( discusión ) 23:23, 23 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Detalles de la Fase 1: una visión alternativa
Esto debería haberse incluido hace semanas, cuando este RFC se cerró incorrectamente y solo se defendió una posición :
Estos son los comentarios realizados por el usuario:DGG , que recibió la mayor proporción de editores ( 91,67% ):
En el caso de los artículos antiguos, el procedimiento de eliminación sumaria es particularmente imprudente. Por supuesto, debemos trabajar en ellos al ritmo que podamos, con el problema especial de que el autor generalmente ya no está presente para ayudar. Lo que creo que es extremadamente peligroso es que la gente los proponga a ellos o a cualquier artículo para que se eliminen sin buscar primero las fuentes, porque no cuesta más trabajo intentar encontrar las fuentes básicas. Incluso podríamos tener una categoría de prioridad para "Lo intenté, pero se necesita más ayuda"; ese es el tipo de cosas en las que me gustaría trabajar. Lo que es aún más peligroso es la eliminación sin buscar. Como ejemplo relacionado, permítanme darles los 40 artículos de esta naturaleza en los que trabajé en los últimos dos días, aproximadamente 10 eran fáciles de encontrar. Aproximadamente 5 fueron un verdadero desafío (para algunos también necesité algo de ayuda para hacerlo bien) y no se debe culpar a nadie por intentarlo y no tener éxito con ellos. Decidí que la otra mitad no podía obtenerse de ninguna manera razonable, o que era tan improbable que al menos no me iba a molestar, y las dejé así. Pero como eran apuntes, cualquier otra persona podía mirarlos y probar. Con frecuencia veo que otros han hecho fácilmente algunos que yo ya había abandonado. Algunos de los que encontré fácilmente eran aquellos que, según puedo entender, otra persona de buena fe podría pensar que no eran lo suficientemente probables como para que valieran la pena. Esa es la razón por la que la eliminación sumaria es inapropiada: solo hay unas pocas clases especiales de cosas sobre las que una o dos personas pueden decidir con seguridad. Entre los artículos que se enumeraban para su eliminación, y que podrían eliminarse según la resolución propuesta, había uno en el que era fácil verificar que la persona era embajadora, y otro miembro de una legislatura estatal; cosas que se decían en el texto del artículo... En ambos casos, me llevó aproximadamente un minuto obtener las fuentes. Con respecto a las eliminaciones arbitrarias que nos preocupan, observo lo que dijo Rebecca más arriba: eliminar un artículo que probablemente sea notable a primera vista sin comprobarlo es lo más destructivo que se puede llegar a ser para la enciclopedia.
La oferta de recuperar los artículos eliminados a pedido es una solución ridícula, ya que la mayoría de los editores no pueden ver los artículos para saberlo. Aquellos de nosotros que sí podemos, por supuesto, podríamos verificar y ver si podemos encontrar las fuentes y recuperar los artículos eliminados si podemos. Ciertamente, no recuperaría los artículos eliminados en esta circunstancia a menos que pueda encontrar las fuentes, pero confiar en que unos pocos de nosotros lo verifiquen solo es práctico si las personas que eliminan son más responsables de lo que algunos de ellos han sido hasta ahora.
Okip 13:05, 20 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Propuesta para cerrar esta convocatoria de propuestas
Bien, en base a los comentarios en la página de discusión sobre mi resumen, propongo que cerremos esta convocatoria de propuestas. Voy a dividir mi propuesta de cierre en dos partes. La primera parte trata de los puntos en los que considero que se ha alcanzado un consenso. La segunda parte trata de una solución de compromiso propuesta en la página de discusión. A los efectos de las fechas, utilicé el 1 de marzo como fecha de finalización de esta convocatoria de propuestas.
Parte 1: Temas en los que el consenso parece ser claro
La primera parte se refiere a cuestiones sobre las que creo que el consenso está claramente definido. Al apoyar u oponerse a esto, hágalo en función de si está de acuerdo o en desacuerdo con que el consenso apoya el tema en cuestión, no de si está de acuerdo o en desacuerdo con él.
Una aceptación de un BLP-PROD "fijo" para los nuevos BLP sin fuentes escritos después del cierre del RfC.
La aceptación de algún tipo de cambio de política o directriz para indicar que esperamos que los nuevos BLP tengan fuentes o que se los pueda eliminar. (Uso "puede" porque alguien más puede agregar una fuente o puede que no se la encuentre).
Queremos reclutar a la mayor cantidad posible de personas y proyectos para esta iniciativa de limpieza. Esto podría incluir, entre otras cosas, contactar directamente a los proyectos, pedirle a la Fundación que coloque un banner en la página, hacer anuncios en Signpost, realizar una campaña de "limpieza", etc.
No queremos que el esfuerzo de limpieza sea una borradura masiva y desordenada.
Queremos/necesitamos tiempo para hacer realidad esta limpieza.
Muchos de los BLP existentes etiquetados como "sin fuentes" no son problemáticos ya que en realidad contienen fuentes.
Muchos de los BLP existentes sin fuentes no dañan a WP en el sentido de que son objetivos y neutrales, pero como tratan con personas vivas, la expectativa está cambiando con respecto a las fuentes.
Se ha rechazado toda propuesta de eliminar rápidamente los BLP que no tienen fuentes o que tienen fuentes deficientes. Esto no invalida los criterios ya existentes para la CSD.
Se ha rechazado cualquier idea de automatizar la eliminación de BLP antiguos sin fuentes.
Nuevamente, no estoy preguntando si usted está de acuerdo o en desacuerdo con el resumen anterior, sino si está de acuerdo o en desacuerdo con que el consenso parece respaldar lo anterior.
Parte 1 De acuerdo
Estoy de acuerdo . Buen resumen. Parece que hay un consenso claro. Aymatth2 ( discusión ) 13:26 22 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Balloonman per: Se está formando un consenso: una visión alternativa ¿por qué no incluiste la propuesta de Bearcat, que fue la propuesta más popular de la fase II, que se puede resumir como: "No estoy completamente convencido de que realmente necesitemos crear una nueva capa de burocracia y regulación aquí". ¿No son muchos de tus puntos simplemente una repetición de la propuesta de Jclemens, que fue derrotada rotundamente por un margen de casi dos a uno? Tengo muchas otras preguntas sobre la validez de este consenso , que están en la página de discusión. (refactoricé la oración repetitiva) Okip 14:29, 20 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Simplemente porque la propuesta de Bearcat tenía 16 apoyos, cuando se la compara con los 163 apoyos de la propuesta de Jehochman en la fase 1 (a la que me opuse firmemente), la propuesta de Bearcat no supera en mucho a esa propuesta. --- ¡ Bloombergman NO! ¡Soy Spartacus! 03:11, 22 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ya he abordado este tema antes, y luego lo he refactorizado. [1] A diferencia de la forma en que usted y Risker defendieron una sola posición, ambos resúmenes de tabla que presenté mostraban TODAS las posiciones. En la primera ronda, Risker ignoró la propuesta de Jclemens, la de Collect y la de DGG, que vino después de la de Jehochman. La propuesta de DGG tuvo el apoyo más proporcional (91,67 %), "borrar un artículo que a primera vista es probablemente notable sin comprobarlo es lo más destructivo que se puede conseguir para la enciclopedia". Si se toma la propuesta de Jehochman (163), frente a la de Jclemens (83) y la de Collects (83), se obtiene un apoyo del 66 %. A pesar de que Risker defendió una sola posición, ignorando la intención de la fase II, la posición proporcional más alta fue la de Bearcat. Es un triste comentario sobre esta propuesta que los editores tengan que llegar a tales extremos para generar consenso. Okip 11:57, 22 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
"Fabricar consenso" es lo que has estado intentando hacer todo este tiempo, citando constantemente propuestas con un porcentaje y olvidando que lo que cuenta en las RFC es la cantidad de partidarios, no el porcentaje. — Café // tómate una taza // ark // 04:28, 27 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo Mlpearc ( discusión ) 23:02 19 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo, al menos esto parece claro. NW ( Discusión ) 23:03 19 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
— Paine ( Ellsworth's Climax ) 23:06 19 febrero 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
-- KrebMarkt 23:17 19 febrero 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Todo esto parece bastante claro. Resolute 23:36 , 19 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, sí... Scott Mac (Doc) 23:46, 19 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
- Philippe 23:57 19 febrero 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Puedo vivir con esto. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 00:06, 20 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy totalmente de acuerdo. Jogurney ( discusión ) 00:38 20 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
De acuerdo. THF ( discusión ) 00:55 20 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ese parece ser el consenso -- Jubilee♫ clipman 01:25, 20 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) Elimino mi voto después de leer las alternativas y comentarios posteriores. -- Jubilee♫ clipman 21:12, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo J04n ( página de discusión ) 03:26 20 febrero 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo y creo que la responsabilidad recae sobre cualquiera que firme diciendo que no está de acuerdo, para demostrar POR QUÉ piensa que el consenso no es claro en estos puntos, no sólo afirmar que no lo es. ++ Lar : t / c 03:44, 20 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo - Kevin ( discusión ) 04:26 20 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo, aunque es lamentable que esto sea más o menos lo mismo que hace dos semanas. Yo y muchos otros hemos publicado mucho antes resúmenes casi idénticos, pero todos se han quedado en el olvido. No se han abordado algunas cuestiones importantes, pero eso no cambia el hecho de que apoyo este resumen como una revisión adecuada del consenso. Sigamos adelante, gente. ♪ daTheisen (discusión) 05:29 20 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esto resuelve buena parte de los problemas principales. Sr. Z- man 06:06, 20 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
De acuerdo. Pcap ping 06:27, 20 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo , pero estoy muy decepcionado de que lo único que puede pasar ahora, el punto n.° 3 mencionado anteriormente, todavía haya quedado en manos de unos pocos usuarios y proyectos. Wolterbot no ha hecho una lista de limpieza desde diciembre (no es su culpa, depende del volcado de la base de datos). NO ES LO SUFICIENTEMENTE BUENO . WP:Aust tenía 1652 en la lista en ese momento. Hoy tenemos menos de 600. Probablemente haya habido entre 10 y 20 editores trabajando en esto durante el último mes. Me lleva entre 5 y 10 minutos hacer una actualización, o entre 20 y 30 minutos hacer una nueva generación de nuestra lista de trabajo . Tiempo que podría hacer un bot, pero el único creador de bots que estaba interesado en esto está actualmente prohibido. Las listas de BLP sin referencias de junio de 2008 no me interesan. Las listas de olímpicos, ingenieros o políticos sin referencias sí podrían interesarme. No necesitamos una RFC para hacer esto, solo un énfasis adecuado que se aplique desde arriba. ¿O acaso no es tan importante para quienes dirigen el espectáculo? The-Pope ( discusión ) 06:33 20 febrero 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
De acuerdo - Esto parece ser lo que acordamos. Sigamos adelante. <>Multi‑Xfer<> ( discusión ) 07:45 20 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo , pero sólo mientras no se pierda la perspectiva ( no se pregunta si estás de acuerdo o en desacuerdo con el resumen anterior, sino si estás de acuerdo o en desacuerdo con que el consenso parece apoyar lo anterior ) .
Parece que la mayoría está de acuerdo (¡aunque yo no lo estoy del todo!). Graeme Bartlett ( discusión ) 09:52 20 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bueno, al menos esto nos ayuda a avanzar en la dirección correcta. Dougweller ( discusión ) 14:33 20 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ojalá pudiéramos decir más sobre la buena fuente de información, pero, por supuesto, permitir que cualquiera edite Wikipedia siempre dejará entrar a algunos idiotas. Sceptre ( discusión ) 14:43 20 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo, aunque me gustaría que el punto 1 se aplicara tanto a los artículos existentes como a los nuevos. Deor ( discusión ) 16:09 20 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
De acuerdo Parece correcto. Aunque puede que aún no haya consenso sobre algunas cosas. Bramble claw x 18:19, 20 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo con los puntos 1 a 5 y 9 en parte . Los demás son comentarios innecesarios y podrían eliminarse, pero son inofensivos. En el caso del punto n.° 5, no importa si muchos o pocos BLP marcados contienen fuentes, la propuesta lo abordará de todas formas. No importa si los BLP con fuentes son problemáticos o no, eso está más allá del alcance de esta propuesta específica. En el caso del punto n.° 7, no importa si un BLP sin fuentes es inofensivo o no, lo buscaremos de todas formas. No importa si las expectativas cambiaron, esta es una decisión que se tomará en el futuro. En el caso del punto n.° 8, creo que estamos de acuerdo en que se necesita alguna acción especial para los nuevos BLP sin fuentes, y aún no hay un consenso claro sobre el proceso específico. En el caso del punto n.° 9, si te refieres a si está dirigido por bots o no, sí, al aprobar esta propuesta estamos rechazando un proceso de eliminación completamente automatizado... pero es "automático" en el sentido de que si no se puede buscar una fuente para un BLP, se eliminará, punto. No creo que sea perjudicial añadir estos puntos, pero creo que tenemos consenso incluso si la gente no está de acuerdo con ellos, porque no cambian el resultado. - Wikidemon ( discusión ) 18:25 20 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo, me gustaría que se pudiera hacer más para tener un PROD con un cronograma, pero no ha habido consenso para ello. — Café // tomar una taza // ark // 21:55, 20 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
De acuerdo pablo hablo . 08:53, 21 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Estoy de acuerdo como alternativa, porque en realidad no es más que una reafirmación de la política actual. En cuanto al punto 1, el diablo estará en los detalles, y creo que "pegajoso" no significa necesariamente más que la opción que siempre quedará, la de dar un empujón a AfD por ser polémico, y eso es suficiente para frenar las malas interpretaciones en cualquier dirección. En cuanto al punto 2, es exactamente una declaración de la política actual, así que no sé por qué se formuló como un cambio. No creo que nada de esto sea realmente necesario, pero no hay nada en lo anterior que pueda empeorar las cosas o impedir que continúe la mejora actual. DGG ( discusión ) 16:12 21 febrero 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo . Y comparto la opinión de Coffee aquí. Jeffrey Mall ( discusión • contribuciones ) - 19:09, 21 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo . Esto deja algunas cosas fuera y otras dentro. Parece un compromiso bastante justo al que me sumo. Camaron · Christopher · discusión 19:18, 21 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Está bien Jehochman Brrr 19:27 21 febrero 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo , principalmente porque el uso de PROD ordinario tiene una visibilidad demasiado baja. Creo que los PROD de BLP deberían incluirse en la clasificación de borrados (por ejemplo, cualquier cosa relacionada con Nueva Zelanda aparecería en mi radar) y, siempre que sea posible, las páginas deberían etiquetarse con los wikiproyectos adecuados. Yo consideraría un mínimo de 7 días, preferiblemente 14. dramatic ( discusión ) 21:16, 21 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo : no veo ninguna razón para que esto deba permanecer abierto y estoy de acuerdo con la lectura del consenso. -- B figura ( discusión ) 21:27 21 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
' Estoy de acuerdo con algunas reservas sobre la "rigidez" de la nueva categoría "BLP-PROD", teniendo en cuenta que en algunos casos puede aplicarse incorrectamente y que en esos casos no debería ser "rigida". Collect ( discusión ) 23:33 21 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Parece que esto es cierto. Papá Noel del futuro ( discusión ) 00:46 22 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo en que parece que se ha llegado a un acuerdo sobre estos puntos y que forman parte del camino correcto a seguir. — Gavia immer ( discusión ) 01:29 22 febrero 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy especialmente de acuerdo con la sensibilidad a la hora de no eliminar elementos apresuradamente, aunque sigo apoyando los criterios de eliminación existentes. ejly ( discusión ) 03:40, 22 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
En general, estoy de acuerdo . Fram ( discusión ) 11:51 22 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo . Jamie S93 ❤ 14:28, 22 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí . — ShinyG ( discusión ) 19:25 22 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo en que esto parece ser un reflejo preciso del consenso alcanzado hasta este punto. - Peripitus (discusión) 21:05 22 febrero 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo con DGG en que la eliminación masiva de artículos antiguos por carecer del estilo actual de referencias es extremadamente imprudente. Llevo participando aquí cinco años y medio. Cuando empecé, no utilizábamos las referencias más rigurosas y sólidas que utilizamos ahora. Los artículos de entonces generalmente utilizaban referencias en línea desnudas , o simplemente tenían una sección de enlaces externos. Empecé, o fui uno de los primeros colaboradores, en una serie de artículos biográficos que no se considerarían referenciados según los estándares actuales. Y recientemente, algunos de esos artículos en los que se trabajó por última vez hace cuatro o más años (artículos sobre personas perfectamente notables) fueron nominados para su eliminación. Creo que las nominaciones demasiado apresuradas de esos artículos son el tipo de error contra el que DGG advierte. En todos esos casos, convertir o actualizar las referencias fue, de hecho, trivial. Puede que no se haya trabajado en un artículo durante cuatro años no porque haya sido "abandonado", sino más bien porque no ha habido nuevos desarrollos que incluir. Geo Swan ( discusión ) 22:32 22 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo . No estoy completamente de acuerdo con todos ellos individualmente (dependiendo de cómo se implementen), pero están razonablemente bien respaldados. Sam Blacketer ( discusión ) 00:16, 23 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo . No estoy necesariamente de acuerdo con todo, pero parece que este es el consenso general. Yilloslime T C 00:23, 23 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo en que esa era mi impresión de lo que la gente pensaba en el RFC inicial, había diferencias individuales en cada uno de ellos, seguro, pero en general, un deseo de un marco de tiempo más largo, una advertencia en las páginas nuevas y algo similar a BLP-PROD parecía ser el eje de la discusión. -- Lyc. cooperi ( discusión ) 00:31 23 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
De acuerdo Parece que hay un consenso sobre los puntos específicos que se mencionan. BLP parece tener un valor claro en Wikipedia, y las historias de las páginas de BLP parecen respaldar (en su mayor parte) los nueve puntos mencionados. Alvincura ( discusión ) 01:42 23 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo . Quantpole ( discusión ) 09:16 23 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo con el resumen. -- Magicus 69 10:02, 23 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo . Sin embargo, actualmente no existen medios para detectar que los artículos recién creados son BLP y ningún sistema de máquina podría tomar esta determinación. Simplemente requerir que ninguna cuenta cree un artículo nuevo hasta una semana después de que esa cuenta haya realizado una edición que no se haya revertido ayudaría mucho con esto. Los usuarios establecidos crearían los BLP y, por lo tanto, los tendrían en sus listas de seguimiento para cambios. Hcobb ( discusión ) 16:27, 23 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo con el consenso, aunque creo que todos los términos son buenos para Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (discusión) 16:41 23 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo . Lo mismo digo de Hcobb. rkairis ( rkairis ) 19:45, 23 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo , teniendo en cuenta todos los pros y contras, parece que esta solución de compromiso es aceptable para la mayoría de la comunidad: rectifica un problema muy grave sin sobrecargar indebidamente a los editores. Simplemente implementa de manera más efectiva nuestra política de contenido central de verificabilidad donde más se necesita. JGHowes talk 22:26, 23 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Acordar una plataforma de compromiso razonable. Johnbod ( discusión ) 02:08 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo , parece resumir muy bien el consenso general. ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 02:29, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo , me parece correcto. ¡Buen resumen! - A l is o n ❤ 03:04, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo -- JohnWBarber ( discusión ) 03:12 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esté de acuerdo sólo en estos puntos. ···日本穣? ·投稿· Habla con Nihonjoe 03:32, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Estoy de acuerdo Sin volver atrás y volver a analizar cada punto, esto resume bastante bien la situación de acuerdo con mi entendimiento -- Boing ! dijo Zebedee 03:36, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo : un resumen adecuado del consenso de la comunidad. Nifboy ( discusión ) 03:39 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo . Es una propuesta muy razonable y bien pensada. David Straub ( discusión ) 03:56 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo . Muy buen resumen del consenso. LK ( discusión ) 04:52 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo El consenso parece claro (y que conste que no estoy de acuerdo con todo lo que dice este resumen, pero creo que está claro que, como resumen de lo que cree la comunidad, es bastante claro). JoshuaZ ( discusión ) 05:00 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo . -- SmokeyJoe ( discusión ) 05:01 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo . Esto tiene sentido (en términos generales) y por eso ha obtenido un amplio apoyo. Los detalles se pueden resolver más adelante. Usuario:LeadSongDog come howl 05:19, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo con algunas reservas menores : Wikidemon, arriba, aborda la mayoría de ellos, y no creo que el resumen sea tan neutral como podría serlo, pero se acerca bastante y, como dijo otra persona, esto nos lleva en la dirección correcta. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ( Õ ل ō )ˀ Contribs . 06:08, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
A mí me funciona. MER-C 07:26, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo -- Plad2 ( discusión ) 07:51 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo. Creo que esto es lo más cercano a la neutralidad que podemos llegar. Un paso en la dirección correcta. Freikorp ( discusión ) 08:08 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo . La propuesta de Jehochman recibió un apoyo lo suficientemente amplio como para que yo la considere un consenso sobre el punto 1. Sjakkalle (¡Comprobado!) 09:39, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo. ¡ Enhorabuena por haberte esforzado por analizar todo esto y haber elaborado un resumen sensato! — Jonathan Bowen ( discusión ) 10:45 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo : se ha hecho mucho trabajo y el resultado ha sido equilibrado. My-dfp ( discusión ) 11:56 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
De acuerdo : no es que tengamos que solucionar los problemas, sino que también necesitamos que se nos vea solucionándolos. Gnan garra 12:35, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo -- Kmhkmh ( discusión ) 12:57 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo : esto parece ser lo que la mayoría de la gente estuvo de acuerdo en Chaosdruid ( discusión ) 15:54 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo Un resumen razonable de los acontecimientos. -- Jayron 32 16:00, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
De acuerdo - Una manera de avanzar es que los creadores de nuevas entradas de BLP estén informados de lo que deben hacer, y las entradas antiguas de BLP no sean simplemente descartadas. Aarghdvaark ( discusión ) 16:03 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
" Estoy de acuerdo . Acabo de terminar una prueba de campo de escritura. Una conclusión PERFECTA para este discurso tan largo y extenso. Apoyo total. Buggie111 ( discusión ) 19:04 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
' Estoy de acuerdo . Apoyo firmemente que Wikipedia sea una enciclopedia que se adhiera razonablemente a su propia política central declarada de verificabilidad . Las BLP son un buen punto de partida. Y para empezar, debemos evitar que el problema se haga cada día más grande. Así que sí, es apropiado centrarse en evitar otra serie de nuevas BLP sin fuentes. N2e ( discusión ) 19:31 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
En esto parece que estamos bastante de acuerdo. Sandstein 19:32, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo . Parece que ese es el consenso y estoy de acuerdo con el 88 %. Bearian ( discusión ) 19:34 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo . Parece un resumen claro y preciso del consenso. Anaxial ( discusión ) 19:40 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo débil No estoy totalmente convencido de que esto sea necesario, pero creo que está bien inculcar la idea de utilizar fuentes a la gente que crea artículos. Esta podría ser una buena herramienta educativa. Calliopejen1 ( discusión ) 19:57, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
De acuerdo con DGG y Aarghdvaark. -- Quiddity ( discusión ) 20:52 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo . Parece que hay consenso en todo lo anterior. Kaldari ( discusión ) 20:56 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo . Se llegó a un consenso en las fases I y II para todo lo anterior. Samwb123 T (R)- C - E 00:11, 25 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo con todo lo anterior. MLauba ( discusión ) 11:43 25 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Acordar los puntos 1 a 4, fusionar los puntos 5, 6 y 9 en el punto 4 como particularidades acordadas. ~ Ningauble ( discusión ) 14:44 25 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo. Parece ser una representación justa de lo que la mayoría de la gente estaba diciendo. prashanthns ( discusión ) 17:51 25 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo . Creo que esto refleja el consenso con la mayor precisión posible. Wine Guy ~Talk 01:44, 26 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo . A mí me parece que hay consenso. Capitán Panda 02:05, 26 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
De acuerdo Parece que hay tanto consenso como se podría esperar. Ojalá el consenso fuera un poco diferente, pero no es eso lo que se está preguntando aquí y, honestamente, creo que esto es (en total) un paso positivo significativo. -- Joe Decker ( discusión ) 22:16 26 febrero 2010 (UTC) (citas corregidas -- Joe Decker ( discusión ) 22:17 26 febrero 2010 (UTC)) [ responder ]
De acuerdo , resumen justo. -- Avenue ( discusión ) 00:24 27 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo , pero en mi opinión el consenso no está del todo claro, porque no menciona que, cuando se eliminan contribuciones sin fuentes de editores novatos, es importante explicar el motivo y ayudar al colaborador a entender cómo mejorar el artículo. Este fue el primer principio de la RfC de "Contenido" de BLP y, por lo que yo sé, no fue rechazado en opiniones posteriores. La idea básica es que podemos ser más firmes sin ser mordaces. - Pointillist ( discusión ) 01:44, 27 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo . Tengo algunas reservas, pero estamos en esta situación y es un comienzo. Si añadimos algo de la siguiente parte, estaremos bien. Jack Merridew 05:32, 27 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Buen resumen. Tim Song ( discusión ) 07:56 28 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo con esta lectura, ya que refleja con precisión el consenso 70.160.29.112 ( discusión ) 13:00, 28 de febrero de 2010 (UTC). [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo . Lara 21:37 28 febrero 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Aceptar . RT292 | (Discusión| Contribuciones ) 08:10, 3 de marzo de 2010 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
No estoy necesariamente de acuerdo con todos los aspectos, pero es la mejor manera de lograr el consenso Nil Einne ( discusión ) 14:18 3 mar 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo -- Pupunwiki ( discusión ) 15:41 3 mar 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo — Spike Toronto 18:20, 3 de marzo de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
"Estoy de acuerdo" parece ser un buen resumen. Jezhotwells ( discusión ) 00:28 4 mar 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo con la evaluación justa que he leído. Hay detalles sobresalientes sobre el BLP-PROD pegajoso: redacción y demora. Personalmente, preferiría incubarlos de inmediato. Para el atraso, esta parece una buena evaluación, pero los detalles importan (especialmente el cronograma). - kslays ( discusión • contribuciones ) 15:13, 5 de marzo de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy del todo de acuerdo , no es de mi agrado, pero en mi opinión es un buen comienzo. ¿Un gafe ruidoso , eh? 20:17, 6 de marzo de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Parte 1 No estoy de acuerdo
Estoy totalmente en desacuerdo sólo con los puntos 1 y 2, por varias razones:
En primer lugar, la afirmación de Balloon de que existe consenso simplemente no es cierta. Ayer, Ballonman publicó una sección en la página de discusión que decía "se está formando un consenso", en la que se ignoraban algunas de las propuestas más populares .
En tercer lugar , sin nuevas reglas mordaces ni burocracia , el número de BLP sin referencias ha disminuido de 52.760 a 42.512, y se han eliminado más de 10.000 artículos de la lista. No se necesitan nuevas reglas mordaces.
En cuarto lugar, ¿cómo conciliamos la propuesta de Balloonman, que en este momento tiene 23 apoyos y no menciona el requisito BEFORE, con la propuesta WP:BEFORE que tiene 19 apoyos mencionada anteriormente? Creo que habría un apoyo más amplio de la comunidad si se incluyera un requisito BEFORE; es posible que yo también apoye esa propuesta. ¿Y también con la propuesta de Bearcat, que con 16 apoyos y 1 en contra es la propuesta más popular en la fase II? Okip 11:39, 20 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
La propuesta WP:BEFORE cuenta con 19 votos a favor y 16 en contra, sería un poco exagerado decir que "el consenso está claramente definido" en ese caso. Sr. Z- man 19:52, 20 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ignoras selectivamente la propuesta más popular de la fase II, la propuesta de Bearcat. Okip 02:28, 5 de marzo de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo. Dios mío, la misma gente que ha estado impulsando esto cree que ve un consenso con el que está de acuerdo. Escandaloso. Ciertamente espero que obtengamos una propuesta formal de esto y tengamos una discusión en todo el sitio sobre esa propuesta. ¡Desgastar a la gente! = consenso. Si crees que es así, hagamos una votación formal. Hobit ( discusión ) 18:03 20 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
En realidad, si se analizan mis posturas, en particular en la primera ronda, me he opuesto a las posiciones descuidadas de CSD/BLP-PROD. El resumen anterior es uno de los consensos que se están formando aquí en la RfC, no mi postura. En cuanto a la referencia de Okip a la propuesta de Bearcat... no se puede ignorar a las 200 personas que apoyaron la propuesta de BLP-PROD en la primera parte de esta RfC. Esos partidarios superan con creces a los pocos que comentaron en la segunda ronda que no se debería hacer ningún cambio. No podemos ignorar la primera parte, ya que la segunda parte tenía el objetivo de centrarse en los problemas identificados en la primera parte, no de anularla. Considero un éxito que la segunda ronda haya aclarado que no queremos que BLP-PROD sea ampliamente aceptado en los viejos BLP.--- ¡Bloombergman NO! ¡Soy Spartacus! 08:11, 21 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Denle una oportunidad a los editores. Mod mmg ( discusión ) 08:00 22 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo. Llegué aquí a raíz de una nota en mi página de discusión que decía que se eliminarían 60.000 artículos... ¡Veo esto como una prueba más de que los editores que eliminan artículos han tomado aún más el control de Wikipedia, una de las razones por las que edito Wikipedia mucho menos de lo que solía hacerlo. ¿Qué sentido tiene esforzarse en mejorar los artículos cuando hay una posibilidad sustancial de que simplemente se eliminen y todo ese trabajo tuyo y de otros se vaya directamente al desagüe? En general, estoy en contra de que se eliminen un gran número de artículos de una sola vez. Ya tenemos herramientas para eso, a través de AfD, etc. Mathmo Talk 11:01, 22 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy confundido por este comentario, ya que estás en desacuerdo con el consenso que explícitamente establece que cualquier propuesta o idea para eliminar rápidamente, o automatizar la eliminación de, cualquier artículo ha sido rechazada. ¿Estás en desacuerdo con estas declaraciones (es decir, que sientes que no hay un consenso para proteger estos artículos de la eliminación), o es este un desacuerdo general para todo el RFC? Estoy pensando que es lo último, y sugeriría que esta es una mala manera de transmitir el punto. El RFC en su conjunto ha superado el punto de "¿necesitamos esta discusión?", y está mucho más cerca de completarse. Creo que si miras de cerca, no es tan malo como piensas - 60.000 artículos no corren riesgo de ejecución sumaria, por ejemplo. -- InkSplotch ( discusión ) 15:08, 22 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esta parte de la propuesta sólo se refiere a los BLP NUEVOS, no a los 60.000 artículos sobre los que se le notificó. Y, además, sólo se eliminará después de una semana con un BLP-PROD, lo que para un BLP recién creado debería ser tiempo más que suficiente para obtener las fuentes. --- Balloonman ¡NO! ¡Soy Spartacus! 17:31, 22 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ooooooh, sólo se borrará después de una semana. ¿Eso es bueno? ¿Por qué la gente se obsesiona con borrar artículos? Si encuentras la necesidad de borrar un artículo, cualquier artículo, hazlo sobre la base de lo que ya hemos establecido. En otras palabras, deja que pase la prueba de notoriedad. Pásalo por el AfD ya existente. Al menos allí, llamará la atención: algunas personas buscarán el nombre en Google y encontrarán información sobre un tema que no conocen ni entienden. La mayoría de los artículos ALLÍ mejoran por naturaleza. No configures una ubicación separada para ejecutar tu proceso de borrado en una ubicación súper secreta separada que la mayoría de las personas, incluso algunas personas, podrían consultar regularmente. A pesar de lo expresiva que he sido, me ha resultado difícil encontrar alguna de estas propuestas de consenso para apoyar porque, ocultas bajo la superficie, alguien todavía está tratando de inventar formas nuevas y tortuosas de borrar más artículos. No pareces entender, la mayoría de los editores no entienden nada de esto. Nunca lo entenderán. No puedes HACER QUE lo entiendan. Lo único que verán serán los resultados de vuestra destrucción, y eso les enojará. Trackinfo ( discusión ) 21:07 22 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Qué pasó con WP:AGF ? El objetivo no es eliminar los artículos nuevos, sino conseguir que se mencionen sus fuentes desde el principio para que se desperdicie menos esfuerzo con las eliminaciones. El mecanismo seleccionado es secundario, pero ese objetivo de comenzar con buen pie con los nuevos artículos está más allá de toda crítica. Usuario:LeadSongDog come howl 05:38, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo. La introducción de nuevos artículos en Wikipedia no debería ser difícil (se revirtió en el primer paso), haya personas vivas o no. Si algunos de los artículos no cumplen con los requisitos, el administrador puede estar en una buena posición para difundir la información entre aquellos (editores o grupos) que pueden mejorarla. Y, si varias personas que afirman tener cierta experiencia en el campo tienen motivos para negarse y recomendar la eliminación, entonces háganlo. Después de todo, la creación de redes es de lo que trata Wiki (¿era?), no de la destrucción. -- Tar-ba-gan ( discusión ) 10:13, 23 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Consulte las instrucciones que se encuentran en la parte superior de la sección. No se trata de lo que prefieren los usuarios individuales, sino de lo que consensuamos a través de las dos partes de esta RFC. Mr. Z- man 15:01, 23 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Umm, el usuario: Mr.Z-man es el número 19 en la sección "Estoy de acuerdo". Santa Claus of the Future ( discusión ) 17:10 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lo siento, pero leí mal la firma de respuesta como firma de comentario. DES (discusión) 01:24 25 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo, aunque parece demasiado tarde para analizar realmente qué ideas tienen consenso en este momento. - Peregrine Fisher ( discusión ) 03:31 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo. Estas propuestas son demasiado restrictivas. Bryan Hopping T 03:52, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy totalmente en desacuerdo . Estas propuestas no son un consenso; nunca lo fueron. Son un efecto de cámara de resonancia producido por un cierre erróneo de la parte I y un grupo de ciudadanos preocupados que se ponen de acuerdo entre sí. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:33, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo con el punto 1 y no hay consenso en absoluto, como he demostrado antes. Simplemente, alguien los está impulsando. Debresser ( discusión ) 07:57 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo con el punto 1. Poulsen ( discusión ) 08:41 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
En desacuerdo - como una distorsión de los procesos existentes que funcionan más o menos: por ejemplo, no puede haber algo así como un prod fijo: " Si alguna persona se opone a la eliminación (normalmente quitando la etiqueta prod), la propuesta se cancela y no puede volver a proponerse ". -- Rumping ( discusión ) 09:25, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo con el punto 1. Todavía no he visto un consenso al respecto, aunque estoy abierto a pruebas que lo demuestren. Los demás puntos me parecen bien. Alzarian16 ( discusión ) 13:41 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo con el punto 1. El resto parece razonable, pero tenga en cuenta que actualmente apoyo la propuesta alternativa de cerrar sin burocracia adicional, dado que actualmente parece que se está avanzando sin ningún cambio de reglas. Si ese esfuerzo falla, apoyaré con gusto la propuesta anterior, con la excepción del punto 1. -- The Anome ( discusión ) 14:17 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo . "Consenso" es algo en lo que "casi todo el mundo" está de acuerdo. En algunos de los puntos enumerados, podría decirse que ni siquiera hay una mayoría de votos, y mucho menos un consenso, y eso entre las 400 personas que participaron en esta discusión. Esos 50.000 BLP sin fuentes representan a unos 50.000 editores cuya opinión es probable que sea muy diferente a la de esta muestra. -- Jorge Stolfi ( discusión ) 14:22 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
De acuerdo con Okip , Weak no está de acuerdo . Sé lo infantil o inmaduro que puede ser este punto de vista, pero estoy diciendo lo que pienso. No es posible llegar a un consenso que satisfaga a todos, como en el mundo real. Cuando aparentemente llegamos a uno, algunas personas comienzan a quejarse de lo importantes o populares que son sus puntos de vista y de que se los ha dejado de lado. A partir de ahí, volvemos a la discusión y el ciclo se repite continuamente. _ LDS ( discusión ) 16:41 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy totalmente en desacuerdo . Todo este proceso ha sido un ferrocarril para confundir y desviar la opinión. Personalmente he intentado ser muy activo en esta discusión, sólo para ver cómo la mayoría de mis comentarios se ocultaban a la vista del público. Incluso con mis esfuerzos, no puedo seguir el ritmo del inmenso nivel de tonterías que hay en todas estas propuestas. El consenso es absolutamente imposible. No es posible esperar que un editor razonable se mantenga al día con esta montaña de discusiones mal dirigidas y, en última instancia, fraudulentas. Las ovejas que han votado a favor no podrían comprender todas las ramificaciones de su voto. Todo esto debe descartarse. Trackinfo ( discusión ) 18:07, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo con el punto 7. Puede haber consenso en que algunos artículos BLP existentes sin fuentes que son neutrales y fácticos, aunque no se basen en pruebas, pueden no dañar a sus sujetos y que, en consecuencia, no dañan a WP más que artículos similares que no son BLP; pero no veo un consenso en cuanto a la posición de que los artículos sin fuentes no dañan a WP, ni en cuanto al grado de daño que sí causan. Veo consenso en cuanto a que, al menos en algún momento, se debería abordar su uso. ~ Ningauble ( discusión ) 14:46, 25 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo – Aunque creo que Jehochman tiene una base sólida para una civilización que sobrevivirá, sospecho que un cronograma de siete días puede implementarse de una manera que afecte a los novatos. Tiene mucho más sentido seguir el ejemplo de Jimbo Whales, con respecto al cronograma, ya que respetuosamente requiere que los novatos (como yo) crezcan dentro de la comunidad Wiki. A través de la retroalimentación, este enfoque coloca la responsabilidad de aprender sobre sus hombros, lo que les permite crecer, pero solo si desean participar. No tendría ningún problema con una limpieza de BOT si el cronograma fuera en la línea sugerida por JW, y no hubiera ninguna actividad en ese sitio que sugiera cumplimiento. Me gusta la idea de una incubadora para aquellos BLP que tienen fuentes marginales. El que miré en realidad tenía fuentes (no en línea) que respaldan el artículo; sin embargo, el autor de esas fuentes y el BLP son uno y el mismo. Si bien esta situación podría malinterpretarse como egoísta, en mi humilde opinión, el autor tiene mucho que ofrecer en su área de especialización. CUoD ( discusión ) 15:53 25 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Increíblemente en total desacuerdo : basta de eliminar contenido y de regularlo. Mantengamos el status quo. Mesa de ayuda ( discusión ) 17:37, 25 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo con la parte 1 , dudo de la parte 2 y sospecho que hay tanto consenso en "No necesitamos más burocracia y más regulaciones" como en cualquiera de las otras partes. Las partes restantes parecen ser en realidad un consenso, o al menos negar con precisión un consenso para el cambio. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:32, 26 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo porque las opciones alternativas están atrayendo un número cada vez mayor de votos a medida que la participación se amplía para incluir a más editores habituales. Este enfoque es una gran mejora con respecto a la postura inicial de "debemos eliminar todo; no hay contraargumentos; aquí hay que aprobarlo automáticamente", y yo podría vivir con ello, pero no creo que el apoyo sea lo suficientemente decisivo como para llamarlo consenso. Certes ( discusión ) 17:33 26 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo. Estoy de acuerdo con Certes en el tema del consenso y con JamAKiska y Septentrionalis en cuanto a la naturaleza mordaz de BLPProd persistente y la parte 1 como el problema. Cambie la directriz sobre referenciar BLP, etiquételo como no referenciado, notifique al creador y permita que los bots adviertan a los proyectos, y use la opción más lenta de prod/afd estándar si es necesario para artículos recalcitrantes o más dudosos. No creo que una semana dé tiempo suficiente para que los nuevos editores, que tal vez no sean lo suficientemente adictos a Wikipedia todavía como para iniciar sesión diariamente, notifiquen y satisfagan las condiciones de prod persistente. --Peter cohen ( discusión ) 20:33, 26 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo No se debe eliminar ninguna información (con fuentes adecuadas). Nunca . Si las únicas piezas de información con fuentes adecuadas que tenemos sobre John Doe (director ejecutivo de ACME Industries) es que fundó ACME y que fue condenado por conducir bajo los efectos del alcohol, por exposición indecente, por golpear a su esposa y por ser un abusador de menores, su biografía en Wikipedia debería presentar esas piezas de información. Si alguien quiere llamar a John Doe (director ejecutivo de ACME Industries) una "página de ataque" , es bienvenido a agregar toda la información restante con fuentes sobre John Doe (a saber, sus éxitos empresariales, sus donaciones caritativas y su amor por las mascotas y los animales). Esta noción de eliminar biografías "incompletas" es censura de puerta trasera (¿Quién en el cielo decide qué significa "incompleto" en este contexto?). Por otro lado, los "datos" sin fuentes o con fuentes deficientes deberían eliminarse al verlos. Randroide ( discusión ) 20:59 26 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo -- Oneiros ( discusión ) 11:50 28 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo con el punto 1, es demasiado mordaz y se presta a abusos. Power.corrupts ( discusión ) 11:36 1 mar 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo Nilotpal42 ( discusión ) 03:38 2 mar 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo , ¡eso es sólo una mala decisión! ¡Vaya por el camino correcto en vez de quedarse sin trabajo! ¡Están allí para este trabajo! mabdul 16:50, 2 de marzo de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡No estoy de acuerdo! Es mejor tener cualquier información (sin fuentes o sesgada) que ninguna. Si sigues asignando a la gente el poder y la responsabilidad exclusiva de eliminar páginas, Wikipedia se convertirá en dictionary.com y similares, de los que tenemos muchos. ¡No elimines, crea! —NakedRaceCarDriver 19:44, 2 de marzo de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo. La razón es que existe el peligro de que se borre información que es correcta (a pesar de que no haya fuentes que respalden la información). Pero peor que eso, hay una gran cantidad de información incorrecta a la que se puede hacer referencia. Me encuentro en una situación en la que tengo información precisa para aportar que aún no ha sido referenciada en ningún lugar y cada vez que la envío, se elimina. La única forma en que puedo conseguir que la información permanezca en Wikipedia es publicando formalmente la biografía en una publicación y luego haciendo referencia a ella. ¿Qué tan frustrante es eso? Sin embargo, hay una biografía en la que siento que vale la pena hacer todo el esfuerzo de publicarla formalmente para poder hacer referencia a ella en Wikipedia. Pero incluso entonces un editor podría informarme de que la fuente no es lo suficientemente buena como para ser referenciada. Eso requiere dedicación más allá del cumplimiento del deber. Nipsonanomhmata ( discusión ) 00:57, 3 de marzo de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
En desacuerdo El resumen puede ser la opinión mayoritaria entre aquellos dispuestos a seguir esta discusión, pero no parece haber consenso, y aquellos que no están de acuerdo presentan argumentos sólidos de que hay poca evidencia de que los artículos de BLP sin fuentes sean en realidad un problema particular que necesite una solución más allá de lo que está disponible a través de los procedimientos actuales. - Snarkibartfast ( discusión ) 05:02, 3 de marzo de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Totalmente en desacuerdo. Creo que esto es estúpido y está diseñado más para eliminar artículos que no le gustan a ciertas personas que para obtener más información, que es lo que yo pensaba que era el objetivo de Wikipedia. Biggus Dickus OMG ( discusión ) 06:03 3 mar 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
El usuario tiene menos de 50 ediciones y ha sido bloqueado.--- ¡Bloomberg ! ¡NO! ¡Soy Spartacus! 15:57, 3 de marzo de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
El comentario del denunciante parece razonable. Veo 300 ediciones desde 2005 y un registro de bloqueos limpio. Certes ( discusión ) 11:22 4 mar 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ese comentario de Balloonman estaba inicialmente al lado del mensaje de Biggus Dickus OMG. Revisa el historial de este usuario y se ajusta a lo que dijo Ballonman. El quejoso simplemente puso el suyo entre medio, así que lo moví debajo. Espero que eso lo aclare. Alzarian16 ( discusión ) 21:36 4 mar 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Er, por supuesto, ayuda si estás buscando a la persona correcta. Mirando la publicación de Alzarian arriba, parece que mi comentario fue movido o algo sucedió. Pero, Biguus Dickus OMG ha sido bloqueado indefinidamente por el usuario: 2over0 por WP: guerra de ediciones y violaciones de derechos de autor en Bruce Bowen, ataques personales y nombre de usuario inapropiado. Su primera edición no fue en 2005, sino el 2 de febrero de 2010. Tus búsquedas fueron para alguien llamado Usuario: Complainer , no Biggus. Es bastante normal cuando una persona ha sido bloqueada indefinidamente, que sus voces sean silenciadas... ya que las guerras de ediciones/ataques personales/nombre de usuario inapropiado/violaciones de derechos de autor son todas señales de que el objetivo de la persona no es contribuir al proyecto, sino más bien interrumpirlo. --- ¡ Blooppman NO! ¡Soy Spartacus! 16:37, 5 de marzo de 2010 (UTC) EDITAR: aquí está la edición en la que Complainer insertó su comentario entre mi nota y la publicación original de Biggus. --- ¡Globoman NO! ¡Soy Spartacus! 16:49, 5 de marzo de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, la edición de Balloonman llegó mientras estaba escribiendo la mía, me confundí y pegué mi texto una línea más arriba. Perdón por el desorden. Complainer ( discusión ) 01:44 6 mar 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Totalmente en desacuerdo Cualquiera que sea el mérito de los argumentos desde un punto de vista ético o teórico, los recursos de los editores de Wikipedia son limitados y deberían emplearse en mejorar los artículos, no en eliminarlos. También me preocupa mucho el énfasis que se pone en el BLP como manzana de la discordia, ya que el BLP representa un punto de presión sobre Wikipedia, es decir, algo que nos preocupa mucho por miedo a enfadar a la gente, normalmente gente que no contribuye a Wikipedia. Ceder en este punto abre la puerta a políticas especiales sobre, por ejemplo, temas religiosos. A riesgo de repetir lo que otros han dicho, los BLP son artículos y deberían juzgarse como tales, sin especial urgencia, atención, trabajo o preocupación. Complainer ( discusión ) 16:02 3 mar 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo Borrar el trabajo de buena fe de los novatos en el mundo de las wikis, alejándolos así, probablemente para siempre, hace mucho más daño al presente y al futuro de Wikipedia que crear una acumulación de reclamaciones que necesitan fuentes. EAE ( ¡Hola! ) 03:51, 4 de marzo de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
En mi opinión, todo este asunto es una tontería. ¿Dónde están las legiones de abogados? Calum ( discusión ) 17:51 4 mar 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo Dado que ya he expresado mis razones en otras ocasiones y he recibido insultos por lo que la gente cree que he escrito y no por lo que escribí, no me repetiré aquí. Pero me reservo el derecho de decir "ya os lo dije" cuando Wikipedia empiece a sufrir claramente por esta cacería de brujas de WP:BLP. -- llywrch ( discusión ) 21:20 5 mar 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo No hay consenso en favor de una mayor burocracia, aunque se crea que es un supuesto "paso positivo". El consenso es que ya hay demasiada burocracia. Richard LaBorde ( discusión ) 04:26 7 mar 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Parte 1 Neutral
En este momento, esta página tiene consenso sobre lo que esta página tiene consenso. :)
Pero me gustaría sugerir que esta propuesta de cierre permanezca abierta durante algunos días (por ejemplo, hasta el lunes).
De esa manera se reduciría cualquier posible sesgo basado en el tiempo y se daría más oportunidad de escuchar a la autoproclamada mayoría olvidada .
Hasta cierto punto, estamos terminando donde deberíamos haber comenzado, con la sugerencia de Balloonman de alinear la política con las propuestas de eliminación (reconozco que tenemos cierto desacuerdo sobre la interpretación de la política actual).
También apoyo algunos de los puntos de Okip en la sección No estoy de acuerdo. Creo que aceptaría los Prods que requieren WP:BEFORE . Maurreen ( discusión ) 12:25 20 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
La propuesta tiene cierto mérito, pero no me gusta que se refuerce a sí misma (al preguntar: "¿Está usted de acuerdo en que otras personas han estado de acuerdo?"). Bueno, bueno. Maurreen ( discusión ) 21:05 23 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si lo leo bien, el propósito de esta página parece ser determinar si hay consenso en cuanto a que existe consenso. ¿Qué sigue? ¿Una página para determinar si hay consenso en cuanto a que existe consenso? Esta situación se ha salido de control y el simple hecho de intentar seguir la lógica (?) requiere un compromiso de tiempo y energía que, en mi opinión, sería mejor invertir en la creación y mejora de artículos. Es probable que se debata mucho y arduamente si realmente existe consenso aquí, independientemente del resultado inmediato de esta RFC. Hay dos cosas que siguen molestándome sobre todo el debate sobre los BLP sin fuentes:
Está claro que un número considerable de editores cree que la política actual es lamentablemente inadecuada, aunque no tengo conocimiento de que se haya realizado ningún esfuerzo concertado para abordar el problema dentro de los confines de la política actual.
Se supone que el problema es urgente, aunque, por lo que yo sé, nunca se ha documentado adecuadamente su gravedad. Aparte de algunos errores de alto perfil (por ejemplo, la "muerte" prematura de Ted Kennedy, en un caso en el que el sistema actual funcionaba bastante bien), ¿hay algún registro de daños causados y en qué escala?
Sigo encontrando amenazas terribles de que Jimbo o la Fundación actuarán si no lo hacemos, a lo que respondo: si la situación es la mitad de grave de lo que se supone generalmente, entonces deberían actuar de manera preventiva. En otras palabras, si la difamación de personas vivas ocurre con frecuencia y de manera flagrante en los artículos de Wikipedia, no debería ser necesario el consenso de la comunidad para abordarla. Si la difamación ya está muy extendida aquí y la Fundación no se ha ocupado de ella, entonces ¿qué diablos hay de prisa ahora? Rivertorch ( discusión ) 19:44 21 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Punto 1: No estoy de acuerdo con el hecho de que exista un consenso sobre los PROD de BLP, esa fue la conclusión de otra persona sobre un proceso inicial muy confuso. Dicho esto, estoy dispuesto a comprometer mis principios para aceptar que la oligarquía disfrutará de poner más de estas desfiguraciones en artículos legítimos que no entienden o que no quieren tomarse el tiempo para mejorar. Debería existir un requisito de que cualquier editor que coloque un PROD de este tipo debe haber hecho un esfuerzo razonable para resolver ese problema de fuentes ANTES de colocar dicho PROD. Tenemos mucha discusión/consenso sobre cuáles deberían ser esos pasos. Lo que encuentro inaceptable es el recurso no mencionado si el PROD permanece por un período de tiempo específico. Trackinfo ( discusión ) 06:56, 22 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
El hecho de que yo estuviera lo suficientemente confundido, inmediatamente antes, en cuanto a las ramificaciones del PROD (y la agenda oculta que lleva a la eliminación de artículos) es una prueba más del fraude en el que se ha convertido esta discusión. Entre la jerga, la eliminación/desplazamiento de la discusión y el gran volumen de discusión engañosa, NO HAY NINGUNA ESPERANZA de obtener una resolución razonable de esta discusión. TODOS LOS ESFUERZOS DEBEN SER DESCARTADOS. Trackinfo ( discusión ) 18:12 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Neutral en cuanto a si el consenso apoya o no los puntos 1 a 9 en cuestión. No hay tiempo suficiente para deliberar antes de la fecha límite del 1 de marzo (hoy en PST). Gracias por la invitación. AllanManangan ( discusión ) 06:12 2 mar 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Parte 1 Discusión
Esta es principalmente una dirección de "arreglo", y me preocupa que carezca de medidas preventivas. Sé que hay un "nuevo 'puede' ser eliminado" arriba, pero ni siquiera eso es sacar a la luz las raíces más profundas: se necesita educar en WP:NPP para mantener la cola en cero, la necesidad de más comunicación y menos mordacidad hacia los nuevos usuarios, y cerrar lagunas dentro del proceso de creación de artículos. Estas lagunas son las que crearon la cola en primer lugar y necesitamos aceptar la responsabilidad como comunidad en su conjunto para asegurar que la pila vuelva a acumularse más. Es bastante detallado y admito que no debería explicarse en detalle aquí, así que ¿alguien podría sugerir dónde podría buscar más opiniones sobre esto? ¿La bomba? ¿RfC separada, ya que técnicamente esto podría considerarse un problema diferente? Este aspecto al menos tiene poco drama y controversia. ♪ daTheisen (discusión) 05:54, 20 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Se incluirá esta nueva etiqueta PROD "pegajosa" en Twinkle? Definitivamente, todas las nuevas etiquetas prod se incluirán en todas las herramientas automatizadas pertinentes porque muchos, si no la mayoría, de los usuarios de NPP hacen un uso extensivo de ellas. Esto garantizará que los nuevos BLP sin referencias obtengan la etiqueta prod correcta. Estoy seguro de que algunos lo lograrán, pero nada es perfecto. <>Multi‑Xfer<> ( discusión ) 07:52 20 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eso se trataría en el segundo punto: NPP podría ser una de las páginas a las que se les informe sobre este cambio, en particular en lo que se refiere a BLP-PROD. En cuanto a la prevención, creo que es lo que esta propuesta aborda en serio. Un acuerdo para implementar BLP-PROD y realizar cambios en las páginas clave para indicar que las nuevas BLP necesitan fuentes. Si bien podemos o no cumplir con el objetivo de limpiar el proyecto, espero que estos cambios pongan un freno al aumento del problema. ¡ Globoman NO! ¡Soy Spartacus! 09:28, 20 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
La comunidad ha tenido años para educar a los nuevos editores y hacer que nuestra política de referencias sea más sencilla para los nuevos usuarios, pero ha fracasado. La pila no volverá a aumentar si se aprueba esta propuesta, sino que los nuevos editores recibirán notificaciones breves que básicamente dicen: "Obtenga la fuente de este artículo o de lo contrario..."
Si lo que te preocupa es que los nuevos usuarios se enojen contigo, deberías oponerte a esta propuesta, porque tendrá un efecto muy negativo sobre ellos. Okip 17:47, 20 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
El que sea mordaz o no depende de cómo se exprese la etiqueta y de cómo se comporte la gente del NPP. Si es confuso, frío y burocrático, sí, los nuevos usuarios se sentirán desanimados, como ya ocurre cuando se borra su primer artículo. Pero si les damos la bienvenida y les damos un mensaje alentador, y los guiamos a través del proceso, en realidad es algo positivo en términos de hacer que la creación de nuevos artículos sea menos aterradora. - Wikidemon ( discusión ) 18:28 20 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Como todos sabemos desde WP:NEWT esto no está sucediendo actualmente, lo que lamentablemente es un fracaso de la comunidad en su conjunto.
¿Podríamos guiarlos a través del proceso sin la amenaza de eliminación o, como alternativa, exigirles a los editores que sigan un procedimiento rudimentario ? Okip 18:36, 20 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Claro, podemos mentirles, pero incluso sin eso, un artículo sobre una persona sin fuentes casi siempre corre el riesgo de ser eliminado. WP:N generalmente también exige fuentes. Mr. Z- man 03:29, 23 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Por supuesto, esto es una pista falsa. Si se maneja adecuadamente, un nuevo esbozo tendrá una fuente antes de convertirse en un artículo sobre una persona (o cualquier tema, de hecho). Simplemente, hasta la fecha no hemos tenido ninguna disciplina en marcha que haga que eso suceda. Si estamos de acuerdo en que debe haber tal disciplina, podemos llegar a un acuerdo sobre la mecánica. Usuario:LeadSongDog come howl 04:55, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si el artículo se crea con una fuente, no pasará por el proceso de BLP sin fuentes. Sr. Z- man 05:17, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Exactamente. Si hacemos bien la mecánica de creación, el proceso de BLP sin fuentes solo debería tener que lidiar con la limpieza de las antiguas. Quizás un mensaje generado por un bot algo como "Gracias por crear <newstub>. Mientras todavía esté fresco en tu mente, por favor recuerda WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT para ayudar a proteger esta contribución de ser borrada. Si necesitas ayuda para citar tus fuentes, simplemente pregunta en el WP:Help desk ." Usuario:LeadSongDog come howl 15:27, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo las propuestas 3-9 pero me opongo a las 1-2, porque las propuestas de la Fase I para permitir material no polémico y sin fuentes estaban bien razonadas (y tuvieron un alto número de votos, por si sirve de algo). ¿El cambio está motivado por la creencia de que existe consenso, por un miedo genuino a cambios impuestos si no cambiamos nosotros mismos, o por los eliminacionistas que crean y juegan con ese miedo? Los ArbCom son jueces más que legisladores. Jimmy Wales expuso su posición en la Fase I, sin ninguna insinuación de "o de lo contrario". No veo ninguna cita de amenazas de acción por parte de la Fundación. Tal vez el hombre del saco no exista. Certes ( discusión ) 20:38, 21 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Todo esto es completamente innecesario. Los artículos nuevos sin referencias se detectan literalmente en cuestión de minutos. Voy a mencionar el ejemplo de hoy. Hoy publiqué el artículo de James Stallworth (atleta) . Mi primera edición fue bastante tosca y sin referencias (pero ese es el texto que aparece en el encabezado de forma permanente en los artículos nuevos; quería mantenerlo limpio de la basura técnica de la wiki). En menos de un minuto, mi artículo nuevo estaba etiquetado para enlaces de desambiguación; en menos de 18 minutos ya estaba etiquetado como un BLP sin fuentes. Todo esto lo hicieron los bots antes de que la patrulla de artículos nuevos tuviera la oportunidad de atacarlo. Durante las siguientes ediciones, hice referencias a todo, por lo que el artículo ya no está bajo ataque, pero si no lo hubiera hecho, esto sin duda habría sido objeto de una dura prueba.
El punto que sigo planteando es que NO NECESITAMOS MÁS BUROCRACIA NI MÁS REGLAS. Ya están ahí para que las usemos. Cualquier cosa que añadamos sólo enturbia la situación. Para un editor, ¿de dónde viene esto? ¿A dónde voy para defenderlo? La cantidad de tonterías que ya existe en la administración de Wikipedia deja fuera de combate a la mayoría de los novatos. Cualquier cosa que añadamos sólo los confunde más. Trackinfo ( discusión ) 20:02 25 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Parte 2: Donde el consenso no es tan claro
Está claro que hay que hacer algo con los BLP antiguos sin fuentes. Si bien es discutible el grado de daño que puede causar y causa tener un BLP sin fuentes, la situación es clara: la fundación y Jimbo quieren que los BLP tengan fuentes. Si no abordamos la situación por nuestra cuenta, la fundación y Gales pueden venir y obligarnos a cumplir. Con este fin, he extraído algunas de las sugerencias de compromiso planteadas en la página de discusión para hacer esta propuesta final:
Nosotros como comunidad nos comprometemos a limpiar los BLP sin fuente dentro de un año.
Se ha debatido mucho si se deben eliminar o no los BLP antiguos sin fuentes. Parece haber una creciente aceptación de que, si la comunidad no actúa, esta propuesta puede volverse inevitable, pero en la actualidad no existe un mandato para hacerlo. Quienes se oponen a ella están presionando por una opción de "limpieza".
Basándonos en la propuesta de compromiso de Scott Mac en la página de discusión, postergaremos durante tres meses la discusión sobre la codificación de la eliminación de los BLP antiguos sin fuentes. Si no se logra un progreso razonable en la limpieza de los BLP antiguos sin fuentes durante ese período de tres meses, se podrá abrir otra convocatoria de propuestas para volver a examinar este tema. Por lo tanto, a aquellas personas que se oponen a la eliminación sistemática de los BLP antiguos les corresponde asegurarse de que esta acción no sea necesaria.
Para juzgar si la comunidad está tomando en serio o no esta propuesta, J04n propuso la siguiente métrica. Actualmente, hay 42.621 artículos en la Categoría:Todos los BLP sin referencias . La comunidad se compromete a reducir este número a 30.000 para el 1 de junio de 2010 (3 meses); 20.000 para el 1 de septiembre (6 meses); 10.000 para el 1 de diciembre (9 meses); y ningún BLP sin fuentes etiquetado como BLP sin fuentes durante más de un mes antes del 1 de marzo de 2011 (1 año). (NOTA: estos objetivos reconocen que aproximadamente 1000 artículos BLP ANTIGUOS no identificados pueden ser identificados o reetiquetados mensualmente. Si este número aumenta, entonces los objetivos pueden necesitar ser ajustados teniendo en cuenta el objetivo de 1 año. Si bien 1000 pueden ser menos que el promedio durante los últimos seis meses, abordaremos los NUEVOS BLP con el BLP-PROD anterior). EDICIÓN: Hice dos ediciones menores ( en cursiva ) según la observación de WSC de que los artículos BLP pueden estar etiquetados como "sin fuentes" en este momento, pero no etiquetados como BLP sin fuentes.
BLP-PROD puede utilizarse con moderación como alternativa a AFD, pero sólo en casos en los que se haya hecho un esfuerzo para obtener las fuentes del artículo y sea bastante obvio que el artículo no sería válido en AFD en su forma actual. Esto no significa que la comunidad apoye, en este momento, el uso generalizado de BLP-PROD en BLP ANTIGUOS sin fuentes, sino más bien un reconocimiento de que pueden ser necesarias alternativas para evitar saturar AfD.
Si la comunidad no logra avances significativos hacia estos objetivos, se podrá abrir otra convocatoria para considerar otras opciones teniendo en cuenta el objetivo original de eliminar el atraso antes del 1 de marzo de 2011.
Una vez finalizado el período de limpieza, los BLP "antiguos" recientemente identificados se etiquetarán con la etiqueta BLP-PROD.
Nuevamente, puede que no estés de acuerdo con cada uno de los puntos anteriores, pero la pregunta que tengo es "¿puedes vivir con este compromiso?"
Sí
Sí, como nom, puedo aceptar este compromiso y ver si la comunidad puede cumplir con sus obligaciones. Aunque no es parte de la propuesta, creo que deberíamos realizar "campañas de limpieza de BLP" durante las últimas dos semanas de cada fase. --- Balloonman ¡NO! ¡Soy Spartacus! 22:37, 19 de febrero de 2010 (UTC)Cambiando a oponerme. En mis notas anteriores, dije que quería saber si la gente sentía que este era un resumen adecuado de cómo se sentía la gente y si podían vivir con ello o no. Separé la segunda propuesta de la primera, porque pensé que habíamos llegado a un punto que era aceptable para la mayoría con respecto a los NUEVOS BLP y creo que la relación de apoyo/oposición anterior indica que tenía razón. Sabía que la segunda propuesta podría ser una historia diferente. Esperaba que se aprobara, ya que era básicamente una propuesta para esperar tres meses y ver si podíamos limpiar nuestro desastre sin hacer ningún cambio. Aunque hay más partidarios, sería ingenuo si mantuviera mi apoyo aquí, cuando no siento que el consenso apoye esta posición en este momento. (Eso no significa que no crea que este es un buen compromiso, sino que sería un hipócrita si mantuviera mi voto ! aquí basado en la oposición que aparece a continuación.)--- ¡ Globoman NO! ¡Soy Spartacus! 14:56, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo. Mi preocupación es que si surgen futuras solicitudes de comentarios, ¿el progreso general se "estancará" nuevamente? Mlpearc ( discusión ) 23:42 19 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo con lo que se indica a continuación. NW ( Discusión ) 23:46 19 febrero 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
En realidad no me gusta, pero es una evaluación justa de la situación en la que nos encontramos y no creo que sea posible hacer más ahora. Por mi parte, estoy dispuesto a abstenerme de eliminar rápidamente información sin fuentes y ver si la limpieza funciona, pero hay límites a una política de "esperar y ver". A regañadientes, me quedaré con esto. -- Scott Mac (Doc) 23:52, 19 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Creo que es importante que "congelemos" las categorías BLP no referenciadas de enero de 2010 y anteriores, de modo que en el futuro, cuando la gente cambie las etiquetas {{ unreferenced }} a {{ unreferencedBLP }} , cambien la fecha al mes y año actuales. De lo contrario, seguiremos teniendo una impresión falsa de la cantidad de trabajo que se está realizando para corregir las BLP. Si bien apoyaría un proyecto de 12 meses para resolver los 42.000 artículos identificados actualmente como BLP no referenciados, no sabemos cuántos BLP antiguos más sin referencia se encontrarán en esos 12 meses y se volverán a etiquetar en los 42.000. Por lo tanto, en mi opinión, esto es demasiado abierto. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 00:17, 20 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo condicional. Mi opinión es que no hay consenso para utilizar BLP-PROD en BLP antiguos sin referencias. Por consiguiente, me gustaría ver una moratoria en su uso en artículos antiguos hasta el punto en que no se alcancen los "objetivos de progreso" descritos en el punto 4. De lo contrario, creo que esto es algo con lo que la comunidad puede vivir. Jogurney ( discusión ) 00:49 20 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo, pero debo decir que no me siento cómodo con el punto 5, pero daré por sentado que se utilizará el BLP-PROD "solamente en los casos en que se haya hecho un esfuerzo para obtener las fuentes del artículo". Por cierto, felicitaciones a Baloonman por intentar avanzar con esto. J04n ( página de discusión ) 03:38, 20 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esto no me gusta especialmente, ya que creo que el cronograma es demasiado conservador, pero puedo vivir con ello y, al igual que Scott, estoy dispuesto a postergar las eliminaciones masivas por ahora. Kevin ( discusión ) 04:35 20 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
En general parece estar bien, pero no creo que necesitemos un BLP-PROD, en lugar de sólo PROD para los viejos BLP que parecen inútiles o no generan controversia (punto 5). Haría que la redacción de una política BLP-PROD fuera más complicada de lo que debería ser. Pcap ping 06:32, 20 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esto es viable. Sr. Z- man 06:43, 20 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, estoy de acuerdo con la afirmación sobre los BLP existentes sin fuentes. Okip tiene un concurso en marcha y tal vez la gente pueda ayudarlo a expandirlo, o con suerte conseguir la base para ello a una escala mucho mayor. Cuanto más BLP se limpien y se obtengan fuentes, mejor. Hagamos esto todos mientras estemos frescos y entusiasmados. <>Multi‑Xfer<> ( discusión ) 07:56 20 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí , puedo vivir con eso. Con lo que no puedo vivir es con más postergación y debate, y ya estoy haciendo lo que mis herramientas no administrativas me permiten hacer para deshacerme de ellos, limpiarlos y mejorarlos. Es una gota en el océano porque no sé cómo abordar 500 artículos por hora como algunos de ustedes, pero lo que estoy haciendo está funcionando. -- Kudpung ( discusión ) 08:21 20 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí , creo que los objetivos numéricos pueden ser demasiado ambiciosos, pero hay otros factores que lo contradicen. Maurreen ( discusión ) 11:58 20 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, estoy de acuerdo con el doctor que aparece arriba, y aunque no es exactamente lo que me gustaría ver, es mejor que nada y parece ser algo en lo que podemos estar de acuerdo. Dougweller ( discusión ) 14:39 20 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo (en que este es un buen resumen de los puntos que aún no se han decidido). Los plazos específicos varían, pero la mayoría apoya o acepta que habrá un plazo, y los más largos propuestos son de un año. El plazo final será de entre 3 meses y 1 año, probablemente de 6 meses a 1 año. El punto 2 es una pregunta ilusoria. Si no se puede encontrar la fuente de un artículo, no se puede verificar, por lo que se puede eliminar según la política actual. Si se puede encontrar la fuente pero nadie se ha molestado en buscarla, eso no es lo que queremos, pero la premisa del consenso emergente es que después de algún proceso, en algún momento si el BLP sigue sin tener fuentes, se elimina. No veo por qué tenemos que esperar 3 meses o empezar desde cero con un nuevo BLP, podemos simplemente tener una propuesta de acción lenta... pero esperar antes de implementar aborda las objeciones de Okip que actualmente están al final de la página de que esto se podría solucionar sin ninguna acción. Estoy confundido sobre BLP-PROD: AfD es un proceso lento y laborioso. Creo que deberíamos dejar abierto el mecanismo exacto de eliminación tanto de los BLP atrasados como de los nuevos sin fuentes para una etapa posterior de la RfC. Acordemos hacerlo primero, luego podremos ocuparnos de la implementación. No produciríamos decenas de miles de artículos a la vez con fechas de entrega idénticas, sino que produciríamos BLP de manera continua o todos a la vez con diferentes fechas de entrega. - Wikidemon ( discusión ) 18:39, 20 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí — Café // toma una taza // ark // 21:59, 20 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, siempre que sea razonable. Bramble claw x 00:43, 21 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si pablo hablo . 08:56, 21 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Está bien Jehochman Brrr 19:29 21 febrero 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí , tenemos que avanzar en esa dirección y, sí, necesitamos métricas explícitas para ello. Si DashBot nos permite avanzar más rápido, también será fantástico. — Gavia immer ( discusión ) 01:36 22 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Casi sí No es exactamente lo que quería, pero es lo más cerca que podemos llegar a menos que la propuesta de Okip obtenga un gran apoyo rápidamente. Pasé a neutral porque los editores de la oposición han presentado varios argumentos convincentes. Alzarian16 ( discusión ) 10:36 22 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí . Jamie S93 ❤ 14:47, 22 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí . Parece una posición de compromiso razonable. — ShinyG ( discusión ) 19:23 22 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí . Estoy totalmente de acuerdo con los puntos 1, 2 y 4... ¡y el compromiso es compromiso! Aeymon ( discusión ) 21:21 22 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo . El cronograma es un poco conservador, pero factible, lo cual es el mayor obstáculo. rkairis ( rkairis ) 19:50, 23 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, parece tan sensato como podría ser. Mayor Bloodnok ( discusión ) 20:33 23 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Básicamente sí, con una gran salvedad en relación con el número 4. El esfuerzo de limpieza puede ocurrir de manera desigual en Wikipedia. Mientras que la comunidad en su conjunto puede relajarse y no cumplir con la promesa de reducir el número de BLP sin referencias a 30.000 (una reducción del 30% en tres meses), un proyecto Wiki en particular o sus editores pueden conseguir con éxito suficientes de estos artículos en su área de interés para bajar de, digamos, 129 a aproximadamente 64 (una reducción del 50% en un mes). El hecho de que la comunidad en su conjunto no pueda cumplir sus promesas no debería dar como resultado que el WikiProject o el área temática sea "castigado" por PROD aleatorios. Se necesita un poco de discreción y sentido común. radek ( discusión ) 03:12, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí , creo que usar los principios aquí establecidos nos permite hacer planes concretos para llegar a un compromiso entre aquellos que quieren intentar eliminar el atraso independientemente de las nuevas reglas primero y aquellos que quieren hacer una nueva prueba de artículo para desacelerar el crecimiento del atraso. -- Lyc. cooperi ( discusión ) 03:38 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Establecer objetivos y revisarlos más adelante es uno de los principios básicos de la planificación de proyectos, algo que Wikipedia necesita desesperadamente. Nifboy ( discusión ) 03:41 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí . Debemos avanzar en este tema. Emmanuel Lasker : "Un mal plan es mejor que ningún plan". Binksternet ( discusión ) 03:42 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mhm . A mí me funciona. Ks0stm ( T • C • G ) 04:32, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, provisionalmente . Esto aumenta la motivación para identificar los BLP antiguos, sin etiquetar y sin fuentes, de los que estoy seguro que hay miles. Es algo muy positivo, pero dificultará el seguimiento del progreso real. Si el problema es un 50% más grande de lo que sugiere el atraso, es lógico pensar que, trabajando al mismo ritmo, se necesitará un 50% más de tiempo para erradicarlo. Estoy de acuerdo con el entendimiento de que el punto n.° 4 aborda esta preocupación. Creo que lo intenta, pero es vago. WFCforLife ( discusión ) 05:28, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo , esto es razonable Voceditenore ( discusión ) 05:48 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, más o menos . Tiendo a pensar que toda esta segunda sección es sólo ruido entretenido en este punto, ya que dependiendo de cómo avancen las cosas, no es posible predecir cuáles serán los efectos secundarios ni qué hacer a continuación. No voy a intentar decidir si mi gato terminará de desayunar a las 9 a. m. cuando no estoy seguro de cuándo me levantaré yo mismo para alimentarlo. Me inclinaré por un "sí" en lugar de un "no" aquí, a falta de una sección "neutral" que no me inclino a crear para mí. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ( Õ ل ō )ˀ Contribs . 06:17, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
de acuerdo -- Kmhkmh ( discusión ) 12:56 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Acordar una manera prudente y decente de abordar el problema sin sobrecargar el sistema. -- Jayron 32 16:04, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo . Puedo vivir con este compromiso, principalmente porque parece tener algún mecanismo de cumplimiento para hacer cumplir lo que decimos. O citamos las fuentes o eliminamos los artículos basura sin fuentes en el plazo de un año. N2e ( discusión ) 19:37 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo . Este compromiso me parece razonable. Anaxial ( discusión ) 19:44 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo . Me parece bien. Esto debería ayudar a que la gente actúe, literalmente. Kaldari ( discusión ) 20:58 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo , parece un compromiso razonable. -- B figura ( discusión ) 00:33 25 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo con un enfoque sensato. MLauba ( discusión ) 11:45 25 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí . Creo que muchos en la comunidad pueden estar de acuerdo con esto, aunque el consenso no sea abrumador. Sin duda, es "habitable". Wine Guy ~Talk 01:53, 26 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo -- Pupunwiki ( discusión ) 15:43 3 mar 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
De acuerdo. Según los comentarios de SMcCandlish. — Spike Toronto 18:32, 3 de marzo de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, puedo vivir con este compromiso. Jezhotwells ( discusión ) 00:25 4 mar 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No, rotundamente . Se trata de una burocracia innecesaria. La comunidad ya ha eliminado 10.000 BLP sin referenciar de la lista. Estamos trabajando activamente para dar a los editores más herramientas, como User:DASHBot, para limpiar aún más el desorden. Okip 17:37, 20 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Entonces deberías apoyar esto! Esta propuesta básicamente dice que si la comunidad puede ponerse de acuerdo y limpiar su desorden, entonces no agregaremos ninguna política o directriz relacionada con los BLP antiguos sin fuentes. Esta propuesta es básicamente una que mantiene el status quo, pero que reconoce que nosotros como proyecto nos hemos comprometido a limpiar las cosas y si no se limpian, entonces tal vez tengamos que volver a considerar la noción de eliminar los BLP antiguos sin fuentes. --- ¡ Bloombergman NO! ¡Soy Spartacus! 04:20, 21 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No, no debería apoyar esto: "retrasaremos la discusión sobre la codificación de la eliminación de los BLP antiguos sin fuentes durante 3 meses". Esto simplemente le da a la comunidad un breve período de tiempo antes de que inevitablemente comencemos a eliminar las contribuciones de buena fe de los editores. La base subyacente de esta idea es que los BLP sin fuentes son un problema, cuando la realidad es que solo una porción muy pequeña lo es . Tal vez aceptaría sus propuestas si su propuesta no ignorara otras propuestas . Okip 12:06, 22 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
En realidad, con la excepción de BLP-PROD en la primera sección, que tuvo el mayor apoyo y ahora ha sido diseñado para NUEVOS BLP sin fuentes, esta propuesta tiene en cuenta esos aspectos. Si nosotros, como comunidad, podemos ponernos de acuerdo y limpiar las cosas, entonces no le pasará nada a los VIEJOS BLP sin fuentes. No escribimos nuevas políticas, no comenzamos a eliminar en masa, la única diferencia significativa que hace esta propuesta es que si nosotros (los que arreglamos) no nos ponemos las pilas, entonces ellos (los que eliminan) tendrán un caso más sólido en el futuro. El compromiso es uno que básicamente dice: que los que arreglan demuestren que estamos equivocados. Si tú y otros pueden limpiar los artículos, entonces no tendremos que hacer ningún cambio en este ámbito. --- ¡No, Balloonman ! ¡Soy Spartacus! 20:25, 22 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo. El consenso no es del todo claro sobre ningún período de tiempo en particular. Incluirlo aquí es simplemente incorrecto y demasiado específico para esta etapa de la discusión. El consenso tampoco es claro sobre cómo etiquetar los BLP, y esto exagera el grado de acuerdo de manera muy sustancial. El consenso tampoco es claro sobre el uso relativo de AfD y Prod. Y creo que hay todo lo contrario de un consenso creciente sobre que la eliminación masiva de viejos BLP será necesaria alguna vez ; lo que veo es un consenso creciente sobre que tal acción nunca debería usarse para ningún tipo de artículo. Consideré apoyarlo, dando las excepciones, pero son demasiadas y demasiado básicas. DGG ( discusión ) 17:12, 21 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Por supuesto, no estoy de acuerdo . Vamos, esto se está convirtiendo en una guerra de desgaste: ¿quién está prestando suficiente atención para esperar a que se escuche toda esta mierda? Además, no estoy de acuerdo con la lectura general (parte I y II) de esta RfC. Hobit ( discusión ) 17:29 21 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esto debe resolverse en algún momento. ¿Estás sugiriendo que una vez que una discusión supera un determinado umbral de duración y tiempo, se vuelve nula y sin valor de alguna manera? Sr. Z- man 18:31, 21 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo Mathmo Talk 11:11, 22 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Algo en desacuerdo. Se ha movido del soporte. Creo que esto es una distracción inútil de las áreas de mayor riesgo de la pedia, como los BLP no identificados y sin referencias, las páginas de ataque en el espacio de usuario y los BLP con fuentes falsas; pero estaba dispuesto a aceptar esto como la moda actual, siempre que fuera una tarea discreta, medible y alcanzable. Sin embargo, como no podemos llegar a un acuerdo para limitar esto a los 42.000 artículos etiquetados actualmente como BLP sin referencias, aún no sabemos el tamaño real del proyecto: miles de artículos etiquetados como sin referencias desde 2009 y antes resultarán ser BLP y, si se van a volver a etiquetar sin actualizar la fecha, se añadirán a los 42.000... Ϣere Spiel Chequers 16:02, 22 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Por eso expresé explícitamente que esperaba que se identificaran alrededor de 1.000 nuevos BLP antiguos por mes. Eso es un poco menos que el número promedio identificado durante los últimos 6 meses, pero si estamos tratando con nuevos BLP sin fuentes a través de BLP-PROD, entonces ese número es (con suerte) más alto que la realidad. Incluí ese comentario explícitamente para evitar el problema de que alguien quiera imponer un punto de vista borrador etiquetando 5.000 artículos por mes. Si vemos ese tipo de travesuras, entonces nos permitirá a aquellos de nosotros que queremos evitar las eliminaciones en masa protestar. --- ¡Globoman NO! ¡Soy Spartacus! 16:07, 22 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias, me di cuenta de esa frase. Pero no veo cómo una estimación pone un límite a la cantidad de artículos reetiquetados como BLP antiguos sin referencias por mes. Hay más de un cuarto de millón de artículos sin referencias por ahí, si más personas buscaran en ese atraso en particular o alguien eliminara las fechas de muerte del siglo XX sin referencias y luego las cambiara a BLP sin referencias, podríamos ver fácilmente cómo aumenta el atraso. Podría aceptar un compromiso por el cual si en marzo de 2010 alguien encuentra un artículo etiquetado como sin referencias desde marzo de 2008 y descubre que la persona aún podría estar viva, lo cambie a BLP sin referencias de marzo de 2010, pero sin eso me opondré sobre la base de que es demasiado probable que termine en lágrimas o rescates apresurados de último minuto. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 16:23, 22 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Interesante escenario. En mi opinión, si un artículo estuviera etiquetado con una etiqueta estándar sin fuentes, no con una etiqueta BLP sin fuentes, *yo* pensaría que cuando lo cambiaran a una etiqueta BLP sin fuentes tendrían que cambiarlo a la fecha actual. Pero creo que tienes toda la razón en que la gente que apoya esto desde el bando de "no eliminar" lo hace basándose en la suposición de que estamos hablando de los 42.000 elementos identificados actualmente. --- ¡No, Balloonman ! ¡Soy Spartacus! 16:51, 22 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hice dos cambios menores, que creo que están completamente en línea con la propuesta original y que deberían abordar su inquietud. La propuesta original contenía un lenguaje que pretendía transmitir intencionalmente que el proyecto está comprometido a limpiar esos 42.000 artículos, al tiempo que reconocía que podrían agregarse aproximadamente 1.000 más al recuento mensualmente, cualquiera sea la fuente. Por eso, modifiqué la redacción para cubrir aquellos artículos que podrían identificarse como etiquetados incorrectamente. ¡No, Balloonman ! ¡Soy Spartacus! 17:03, 22 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Acerca de la preocupación de User:WereSpielChequers : Me pregunto si es posible abordar esto desde la perspectiva opuesta. Es decir, "ocuparse de* x cantidad de artículos por período", en lugar de establecer el nivel en la cantidad de artículos pendientes. Pero la cantidad de artículos atendidos puede ser demasiado difícil de determinar. Maurreen ( discusión ) 17:29 22 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias a Balloonman por esos cambios y a Maureen por la sugerencia de medir los artículos arreglados en lugar de la cantidad de artículos que aún se encuentran en esa categoría. No estoy convencido de que ninguna de las dos cosas pueda funcionar, excepto quizás con el enfoque desordenado de agregar otra lista o categoría para los 42 000 actuales y medir cómo eso cambia. He solicitado que el Bot que está haciendo esto se modifique para que también arregle la fecha, pero si lees User talk:Mr.Z-man#A tweak to your Bot plz , también hay un caso para dejar la fecha sin modificar al arreglar la etiqueta. Si no fuera por la concentración en lidiar con esta categoría de mantenimiento en particular, estaría de acuerdo con dejar esas fechas sin modificar, pero no creo que la propuesta actual funcione como está: en algún momento todo terminará en lágrimas con un lado diciendo que han arreglado mucho más de los 42 000 prometidos y el otro lado diciendo que todavía hay x mil en esa categoría. Hay Spiel Checkers 18:09, 22 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Tacharé esa parte porque creo que el bot se modificará y pasaré a un desacuerdo leve. No creo que esta propuesta tenga un respaldo consensuado y creo que sería mejor centrarse en un gran cambio: pasar los nuevos BLP de verificables a verificables en lugar de tener dos cambios al mismo tiempo. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 16:13, 25 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse a DGG y a WereSpellChecquers y al problema de mete-rfc que se menciona a continuación. --Peter cohen ( discusión ) 16:55 22 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo con el tiempo; el problema del "uso justo", que probablemente daría lugar a demandas judiciales, le dio al Proyecto un año a partir de la decisión de la Fundación para desarrollar una política, y un año más para arreglar las cosas. Aquí, ni siquiera tenemos un consenso o mandato de que este sea el problema que se debe resolver. Si el tiempo se establece mediante un consenso claro, algunas de las otras disposiciones parecen aceptables. — Arthur Rubin (discusión) 17:00 23 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
La junta directiva de WMF aprobó una resolución con respecto a BLP y existe un grupo de trabajo que investiga soluciones "de arriba hacia abajo" para los problemas de BLP. Además, para que conste, OTRS actualmente recibe entre 6 y 7 quejas de BLP por cada queja de Copyvio. Sr. Z- man 03:00, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
De acuerdo. Nuestra fecha objetivo probablemente debería ser dentro de los dos años siguientes al informe final del grupo de trabajo. Un año a partir de ahora es demasiado pronto, sin un consenso o mandato de que esto es siquiera parte del problema. ¿Y cuántas de las quejas de BLP equivalen a WP:IDONTLIKEIT o se refieren a material con fuentes adecuadas, o incluso nominalmente citadas? Esta tarea, como mucho, resolvería previamente las quejas sobre material que ni siquiera tiene fuentes nominales . (Me doy cuenta de que OTRS probablemente no mantiene registros con el detalle adecuado para determinar si alguna de las quejas se resolvería mediante este proceso). — Arthur Rubin (discusión) 16:45, 5 de marzo de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo con la idea de que se puedan legislar estas cosas. En líneas generales, estoy de acuerdo con DGG en esta sección de la propuesta. Orderinchaos 00:36, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse como lo hicieron DGG y Arthur Rubin. DES (discusión) 02:57 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse Si un artículo claramente sería un fracaso para la AfD, propóngalo para la AfD ; si la AfD sería una bola de nieve, diga por qué y propóngalo para el CSD. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:36, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No. Más reglas y eliminaciones arbitrarias harán que la creación de una enciclopedia sea más difícil. -- Rumping ( discusión ) 09:17 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No. El tiempo de PROD (propuesta de eliminación) debería ser de 1 mes , para dar más tiempo a los editores para que reconozcan el problema. Los editores de BLP antiguos probablemente no visiten con frecuencia sus páginas. ¿Por qué tanta prisa? Aparte de eso, la propuesta parece razonable. Setreset ( discusión ) 10:25 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oposición . Esta sigue siendo la propuesta "terrorista" de "que alguien haga lo que queremos o mataremos a miles de buenos artículos inocentes". -- Jorge Stolfi ( discusión ) 14:29 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No, creo que fue un buen compromiso, pero está claro por la cantidad de oposición que ha recibido esta propuesta que no tiene el apoyo de la comunidad. Le pregunté a la gente si podían vivir con la propuesta y también esperaba que pudiera representar un consenso mientras se estaba formando. Como no es así, tengo que cambiar a regañadientes mi !voto a oponerme... mi !voto en este asunto se basa, como le pregunté a la gente arriba, en parte en si veo o no que esta propuesta tiene el apoyo de la comunidad. Esta propuesta no lo tiene. Volvamos a las mesas de dibujo Chicos y chicas. Ah, sí, podrían decir algunos, pero la votación fue de 2,5 a 1 a favor de la propuesta. En mi opinión, cuando se trata de algo tan grande e importante, una mayoría de 2,5 a 1 no es suficiente. Yo querría una aceptación de al menos 3 a 1 o incluso 4 a 1. Y la oposición tiene una lógica lo suficientemente fuerte como para que tengas que darle crédito. --- ¡Globo ! ¡NO! ¡Soy Espartaco! 15:00, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No , los tiempos sugeridos son demasiado cortos, por lo que me opongo. Aparentemente, el problema existe desde hace mucho tiempo, así que ¿por qué estipular 5 días o incluso menos? Muchos editores pueden no visitar "su" página durante un mes o más si es antigua. Aarghdvaark ( discusión ) 16:11 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse a la DGG. Jclemens ( discusión ) 18:12 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡No, no, no, no! Detrás de esta propuesta se esconde el plan de borrar artículos a ciegas por su cantidad, sin tener en cuenta su valor individual. Esta resolución es totalmente inaceptable como respuesta. Trackinfo ( discusión ) 18:32 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
En absoluto. La propuesta es tomarse tres meses de descanso, dar a los que han hecho las correcciones una oportunidad de demostrar lo que dicen y poner orden en el proyecto. Si no se pone orden, entonces y sólo entonces tendremos que explorar otras opciones. Esta opción es cerrar la discusión en una posición de status quo, pero con el compromiso de trabajar en el problema sabiendo que si no se hace eso probablemente se vuelva a discutir, lo que probablemente sucederá si nunca sucede nada. ¡ Globoman NO! ¡Soy Spartacus! 18:43, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Generalmente no , según DGG. Los detalles no se han resuelto en ningún tipo de consenso. Bearian ( discusión ) 19:39, 24 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) Respuesta más completa: 1. No hay un compromiso de la comunidad "para limpiar los BLP sin fuentes en el plazo de un año". Muchos usuarios aquí lo ven como un objetivo en movimiento. 2. Basándome en algunos casos de prueba en WP:AfD y (CAT:PROD), creo que el consenso es que los BLP antiguos sin fuentes no deberían eliminarse. Véase, por ejemplo , Wikipedia:Artículos para eliminar/Pete Williams (periodista) . 3. La propuesta de Scott Mac de un período de 3 meses no es necesariamente un compromiso, y podría no ser tiempo suficiente. 4. La propuesta de J04n sobre las métricas es una buena sugerencia, pero todavía no hay ni de lejos un consenso al respecto. 5. Estoy de acuerdo en que "BLP-PROD puede usarse con moderación como alternativa a AFD, pero sólo en casos en los que se haya hecho un esfuerzo para obtener las fuentes del artículo...". 6. Abrir "otra solicitud de comentarios... para considerar otras opciones" es una opción válida. 7. Creo que hay un consenso claro en que "una vez que se complete el período de limpieza, los BLP "antiguos" recientemente identificados se etiquetarán con la etiqueta BLP-PROD". Decidamos lo que decidamos, ese es el límite de tiempo. Bearian ( discusión ) 19:48 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo. Creo que la "pausa" en medio de esta RFC la arruinó, con una afirmación prematura de consenso donde no lo había. No creo que esta discusión haya demostrado ningún consenso sobre (la amenaza de) eliminar los BLP antiguos y sin referencias. Calliopejen1 ( discusión ) 19:51 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Como muchos de los que han dicho más arriba, estoy de acuerdo con las ideas generales, pero los plazos son demasiado estrictos. (En cuanto al consenso en general, tenía la impresión de que no debíamos añadir secciones "en contra" en la fase 1, por lo que sólo comenté en las secciones "de apoyo". Supongo que esta situación se aplica a muchos participantes y espero que se haya tenido en cuenta de alguna manera). -- Quiddity ( discusión ) 21:01 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo a esta parte (parte 2), pero apoyo la primera parte (parte 1) . Estoy de acuerdo con todo excepto con el punto 5. Creo que todos los BLP sin fuentes deberían estar en BLP-PROD, no en PROD normal. Samwb123 T (R)- C - E 00:18, 25 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse a la métrica. La forma correcta de "esperar tres meses" y luego ver dónde estamos es haciendo lo que no se ha hecho: ver cuántos artículos con plantillas hay y extraer una muestra de unos 100 artículos para ver cuántos de ellos son nuevos (es decir, creados después de que se cierre este proceso), cuántos de ellos no tienen fuentes, cuántos de ellos son erróneos y cuántos de los errores son graves. (En el proceso, mejoraremos 100 artículos). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 26 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No. Bueno, técnicamente sí: todo el mérito es de Balloonman y muchos otros por calmar la RfC y convertirla en algo con lo que podría vivir , pero aún así sería un paso atrás. Sé que esto no es una votación, pero he elegido la sección No para que quienes discutan la "opción más popular" cuenten uno en contra. Certes ( discusión ) 17:53 26 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No. Nom ha dado su apoyo y lo mencionado anteriormente. - F ASTILY ( TALK ) 04:21, 27 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo, según DGG y Bearian. Me gustaría que los editores que están seriamente preocupados por este problema dedicaran más tiempo a buscar fuentes de información y menos tiempo a debatir: el problema se resolvería mucho más rápido. Power.corrupts ( discusión ) 20:09 27 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Moderadamente. Puedo vivir con este compromiso al final, pero creo que es prematuro en esta etapa. Por DGG, Bearian y otros. Tim Song ( discusión ) 08:00, 28 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo -- Oneiros ( discusión ) 11:51 28 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo Nilotpal42 ( discusión ) 03:47 2 mar 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No , como se ha dicho anteriormente. Algunas partes parecen aceptables como compromiso, pero no me gustan las amenazas de algunos defensores de "retrasar" las eliminaciones masivas "por ahora". - Snarkibartfast ( discusión ) 16:25, 3 de marzo de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Discusión
Por favor, no otra convocatoria de propuestas. Si no se logra un progreso razonable (eso en sí depende de cada uno, debería definirse) en tres meses, simplemente se debe generar una cantidad equivalente de artículos para alcanzar nuestra cuota predefinida para ese mes. El resto parece aceptable como un compromiso razonable para todas las partes. NW ( Discusión ) 23:07 19 febrero 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Incluya eso allí, ya que era parte de la solución de compromiso original de Scott. Sin embargo, agregué una propuesta para permitir el uso de BLP-PROD con la salvedad de que la persona que lo aplica debe verificar las fuentes primero. Por ejemplo, si una persona que trabaja en la cola se topa con un artículo que no puede obtener, siga adelante y reproduzca... pero esto no debería considerarse una licencia para la producción en masa de BLP sin fuentes. --- ¡Bloombergman NO! ¡Soy Spartacus! 23:28, 19 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
En cuanto al progreso razonable, de eso se trata el punto 4: definir qué es un proceso razonable. No quería dejarlo vago y en manos de quien lo mire ;-)--- ¡No, Balloonman ! ¡Soy Spartacus! 23:31, 19 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bueno, estoy de acuerdo contigo en espíritu, pero no creo que necesitemos otra convocatoria de propuestas. No entiendo por qué la propuesta de Alverstand no obtuvo más apoyo, ya que mucha gente parece querer esperar hasta que el progreso actual se estabilice antes de realizar eliminaciones forzadas. Estoy de acuerdo, esperemos. Pero ahora podemos decidir qué hacer cuando deje de caer. Gigs ( discusión ) 23:43, 19 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
cabeza→escritorio. El resto me parece bien. Y Gigs, creo que la respuesta a eso es que éste es el compromiso más razonable. Si fuera por mí, no estaríamos esperando en absoluto. Pero reconozco que el resto de la comunidad tiene puntos de vista diferentes a los míos, y por eso yo, como la mayoría de los demás, estoy dispuesto a hacer concesiones y aceptar lo que no habríamos aceptado de otra manera en nombre del progreso. NW ( Discusión ) 23:46 19 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Te refieres a los 163 usuarios que apoyaron la propuesta original de Jehochman para un BLP-PROD, lo que es significativamente más apoyo que los 16 usuarios que apoyaron la posición contraria de Bearcat que citas como una de las posiciones más apoyadas/populares? ¿O la que estás citando como que tiene un apoyo de 19-7, pero que solo puede llegar a los 7 si descuentas a las nueve personas que no escribieron la palabra "oponerse" en su justificación de oposición? --- ¡ NO! ¡Soy Spartacus! 09:47, 21 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esta propuesta me resulta muy confusa. ¿La gente está de acuerdo en que no hay consenso sobre estos puntos o está de acuerdo con los puntos en sí? Gigs ( discusión ) 23:55 20 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Creo que la gente está de acuerdo en que no hay un consenso claro sobre estos puntos, pero deberíamos seguirlos de todos modos, como un compromiso con el que podemos estar de acuerdo. NW ( Discusión ) 03:18 21 febrero 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Je, una especie de paradoja autorreferencial. :) Bueno, de todos modos, estoy de acuerdo. Gigs ( discusión ) 04:13, 21 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
En cuanto a la obligación de la fundación, ¿alguien ha mirado otras Wikipedias? Una comprobación aleatoria de las BLP en la alemana mostró que 5 de cada 10 no tenían fuentes, y 3 de las otras sólo citaban sitios web que no consideraríamos adecuados. En la Wikipedia francesa, de 10, 2 no tenían fuentes, y 7 de ellas sólo citaban sitios web que no eran adecuados. Parece ser una práctica rutinaria en deWP en particular que si la fuente fuera obvia, no se molestaran en especificarla. Ni una sola de las 20 en ambas Wikipedias tenía citas en línea. Además, aceptan un enlace al equivalente de los listados de WorldCat de libros de y sobre la persona: el catálogo de la Nationalbibliothek alemana como fuente suficiente. [ejemplo de entrada de DNB]. DGG ( discusión ) 17:05, 21 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
(Des)afortunadamente, el wiki en inglés es el más importante, por lo que, para bien o para mal, se han implementado aquí muchos "pasos adelante" de calidad de edición. -- KrebMarkt 18:45, 21 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
En realidad, el paso más importante para mejorar drásticamente el contenido de BLP (y otros), las revisiones a vista de pájaro, fue implementado por el deWP; nos lo han prometido desde hace medio año. No veo por qué asumes que los angloparlantes son más racionales que el resto. DGG ( discusión ) 19:54 21 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lo que resulta amargamente gracioso es que probablemente duplicaremos los esfuerzos para lidiar con los BLP sin fuentes y para implementar revisiones con visión de futuro en los BLP al mismo tiempo. -- KrebMarkt 23:05, 21 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lo dudo, la fundación ni siquiera tiene una estimación de cuándo podrán estimar un cronograma para la implementación. Si tenemos suerte, tendremos algún tipo de FlaggedRevs para fin de año. Mr. Z- man 17:36, 25 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo : los plazos cortos son la mejor idea, y la eliminación de otros BLP que no se mencionan después de la fecha de cierre. Buckshot06 (discusión) 23:31 21 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Cada punto da pie a un debate extenso para resolverlo. En este momento no se ha logrado un consenso sobre estos puntos, y ni siquiera se ha probado la introducción. Algunas de las ideas son buenas, pero eso no significa que estén en una forma definitiva. Graeme Bartlett ( discusión ) 10:07 22 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Las personas que etiquetan artículos para eliminarlos deberían ayudar con la búsqueda de fuentes. Este problema no se aborda. Sole Soul ( discusión ) 10:48 22 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Comentario : Proteger la privacidad de los sujetos de BLP injustificados es importante, pero ni siquiera se ha mencionado aquí. Conozco a una persona cuyo artículo es una amalgama de información no destacable, parte de la cual complica su vida social y su carrera, aunque no sea un "ataque". No se citaron fuentes durante años, y ahora las fuentes son deficientes, y sigue pareciendo no destacable, y en su mayor parte es incorrecto. Hay advertencias por todas partes sobre que la persona no debería editar su propio artículo, y amigos como yo también tenemos un posible conflicto de intereses. Incluso plantearlo para debate corre el riesgo de aumentar la exposición, acusaciones de segundas intenciones, causar una escena, etc. Sin embargo, no hay nadie más que pueda limpiarlo adecuadamente, y los recursos son escasos. Pero la actitud expresada aquí se refiere principalmente a lo malo que sería eliminar de Wikipedia información que no sea un "ataque", y muchas personas que han invertido un poco de tiempo en encontrar una fuente tienden a querer defender el artículo y evitar el consenso para eliminarlo. Creo que los wikipedistas deben darse cuenta de que Wikipedia no tiene derecho a invadir la privacidad de personas no famosas. Infórmese sobre ética periodística. Por ejemplo, reconozca que las personas privadas tienen un mayor derecho a controlar la información sobre sí mismas que los funcionarios públicos y otras personas que buscan poder, influencia o atención. Solo una necesidad pública primordial puede justificar la intrusión en la privacidad de alguien. - del código de ética de la Sociedad de Periodistas Profesionales: Ética y estándares del periodismo . Considere esto y piense en las diversas reacciones que podría tener el sujeto ante un artículo la próxima vez que se enfrente a una biografía y cuestiones de notoriedad. Puede haber mucho daño en tener artículos poco destacables, mal documentados e inexactos aquí, y eso es demasiado común hoy en día. NealMcB ( discusión ) 05:31, 2 de marzo de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse a esta noción mismameta-RFC
Lo mejor es dejar que uno de esos legendarios administradores no involucrados evalúe el consenso. Obtener consenso sobre lo que hay consenso (en particular con niveles de participación que no son mucho mejores que los de la RFC real)... simplemente parece algo retrógrado. Parece promover la noción incorrecta de que estas cosas se basan completamente en la votación . -- Cyber cobra (discusión) 01:40, 20 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) (Retiro mi apoyo a mi propia declaración sobre la solidez de las refutaciones) [ responder ]
Apoyo
Fuerte apoyo , como lo demuestra la historia de esta RFC , y que se demostró nuevamente ayer , cuando Balloonman declaró que "casi se había alcanzado el consenso" promocionando su propuesta e ignorando las propuestas de otros editores. Tenga MUCHO cuidado con los editores que afirman que se ha alcanzado el consenso. Okip 16:45, 20 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo . Mi sensación es que la gente está respondiendo a las experiencias personales con ideas constructivas de su propia creación. ¿Haber sido webmaster de grandes bases de conocimiento en línea? Estas percepciones subjetivas de los problemas y los remedios que no se basan en estadísticas sólo fomentan la confusión. La gente está tratando de "tener una idea" del problema, cuando el análisis, el análisis formal es apropiado. Necesitamos un apalancamiento estadístico aquí. Mi conjetura es que el 80% de los artículos biográficos sin fuentes son en realidad enciclopédicos; simplemente carecen de fuentes adecuadas. De la misma manera, casi todos los artículos de Wikipedia que tienen el mayor número de lectores diarios han sido comprometidos por fuentes de marketing, de modo que son informes endebles de relaciones románticas no enciclopédicas, trivialidades profundas sobre actuaciones únicas y recitaciones desconcertantes e inexplicables de remixes. Tener o no una fuente de artículo está lejos de ser una prueba de fuego para resolver material no enciclopédico. Saludos, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard ( discusión ) 04:22, 21 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Parece que hemos perdido la discusión sobre las otras propuestas de la fase I. Las tres propuestas principales deberían haberse discutido aquí, ya que algunas ideas eran bastante diferentes al resumen de la fase I. Graeme Bartlett ( discusión ) 09:58 22 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte. Mathmo Talk 11:05, 22 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Todo esto es un desastre con la introducción en el resumen de puntos que no se discutieron adecuadamente anteriormente, como por ejemplo que es mejor que derribemos la casa nosotros mismos antes de que lo haga el lobo feroz. --Peter cohen ( discusión ) 16:47 22 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo . La selección de temas desde el RFC I hasta esta fase fue errónea, incluso si el resumen fuera preciso; incluso si se hubiera obtenido un consenso sobre los temas aquí, la implementación debería posponerse hasta que se discutan los temas reales del RFC I. — Arthur Rubin (discusión) 17:18 23 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo , un claro ejemplo de "quien redacta el documento manda", no es una buena manera de manejar un asunto tan serio, en mi opinión. DES (discusión) 03:00 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo . Detengan todo este proceso y no vuelvan a empezar de cero. Olvídense de todo esto como si fuera una pesadilla. Para entender lo frívolas y mezquinas que son TODAS estas propuestas, por favor vayan a la sección =Totalmente decepcionado= al final. Léanla completamente, asimílenla. Si eso no les hace entender la estupidez de este proceso, ya deben estar sufriendo los síndromes descritos en esa sección y necesitan seriamente buscar ayuda profesional. Trackinfo ( discusión ) 07:49 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse a
Creo que en este caso "Legendario" significa "imposible de encontrar". No es que no aprecie un cierre excepcionalmente bien pensado, pero no me importa cerrar esto de la misma manera que se cierra un caso de ArbComm: eligiendo un plan que sea lo suficientemente bueno y reuniendo apoyo para respaldarlo en lugar de quedarnos eternamente empantanados en los detalles. Nifboy ( discusión ) 04:12 24 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Discusión
Estoy totalmente de acuerdo con meta . Iba a publicar más sugerencias en la discusión, pero como perdió completamente el rumbo y terminó persiguiendo sus propias colas (como ocurre en la mayoría de las solicitudes de comentarios de Wikipedia), sí: es mejor dejar que uno de esos legendarios administradores no involucrados evalúe el consenso , especialmente porque, según una estimación aproximada, el 90% de los comentarios fueron hechos por aproximadamente el 5% de los contribuyentes, y muchos de ellos no tenían nada que ver con el título del tema. -- Kudpung ( discusión ) 02:13, 20 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sólo se necesita un "administrador no involucrado" si no se ha formado un consenso claro... lo que no es el caso aquí. En un mundo ideal, el consenso será claro y todos podremos estar de acuerdo con lo que el organismo haya determinado... si no podemos estar de acuerdo, entonces no se habrá alcanzado un consenso verdadero y podremos tratar de resolver los problemas pendientes. Además, de esta manera evitamos decisiones desde arriba por parte de personas que pueden tener un interés en el juego, pero que han guardado silencio. Finalmente, al lograr que todos estén de acuerdo con lo que se ha acordado, se evita que la gente proteste o juegue con los demás en el futuro. --- ¡ Globoman NO! ¡Soy Spartacus! 03:26, 20 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
I agree with Balloonman, if there's consensus that there's a consensus, then surely that means there's a consensus (2 actually). Given the huge amount of discussion, the number of articles involved, etc., its rather hard for someone to be both qualified to judge such a consensus and completely impartial. Mr.Z-man 06:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've summed that up perfectly Mr.Z-man. And that's the whole problem (as I hinted above) with all Wikipedia debates: everything needs a consensus for a consensus for a consensus ad nauseam... --Kudpung (talk) 08:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Currently the above discussions are near-unanimous. If it stays the same, it wouldn't take a consensus to figure out the consensus there. Mr.Z-man 16:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about Bearcat's proposal? Which was not addressed by Balloonman? And which has 16-1 in support? Okip 16:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not referring to that. Mr.Z-man 16:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that so far, this meta-RfC is doing a great job to both identify and further consensus. Why on earth would you want to shut the meta-RfC down, in light of that?--Father Goose (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm naïve, but I still have a problem with this idea of a consensus. I've been editing Wikipedia for many years, and the closest I've seen "coming to a consensus" simply meant that seven editors said yes, two editors said no, and the two naysay editors were expected to "come around". It's still Majority rule and screw the minority, so let's not kid ourselves, okay?
To paraphrase Forest Gump, consensus is as consensus does. If someone wants to summarize people's views, and people seem to sign on, that's helpful. I've looked at the attempted summary. It looks pretty good to me. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pupunwiki (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy
Thanks to User:DASHBot the hard work of the community, in one short month, 10,000 unreferenced articles have been referenced or removed, and the community is actively removing more.
I propose that we support Bearcat's proposal, which actually had the most support in phase II, when Balloonman wrote "Proposal to Close This RfC". As Bearcat wrote, we don't "actually need to create a whole new layer of bureaucracy and regulation here."
Note, refactored slightly for clarity. I also fixed the link caused by #technical disruption Okip 12:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support
As proposer. Okip 18:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is fine. If the reduction of the unreferenced BLPs backlog continues apace, then when we review matters in three months, there will be (as you say) no need to do any more. We don't need to choose between the "do nothing" and the "do something", I think we've a consensus that we do nothing in terms of deletion with the backlog for three months, and then see. If you are correct that DASHbot and other initiatives will show a continuing significant reduction in the backlog then I'll be happy to agree with you in opposing anything further - it will simply be unnecessary. I don't, however, see how this is an "alternative" to the above.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. It is an alternative view that the existing framework can address unreferenced BLPs. I would be happy to support Balloonman proposal, if that proposal includes rudimentary WP:BEFORE requirements to help insure new users are not bitten. Okip 18:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the existing framework seems on track to eliminate the backlog within a reasonable period (I suggest 1 year) then that's fine. I'm probably more pessimistic than you are, but time will tell. There's really not a lot of point in arguing about it. If we look back in three months and see a really significant fall, then it will be obvious that enough is being done and the "stick" of threatened backlog deletions will have proven unnecessary. If not, we can discuss what alternatives are needed at that point. I'm happy to "wait and see" for three months wrt the backlog. As for biting new users, no one wants to do that. If new unreferenced BLPs are prodded, then the notice should be very nice. "Thanks for this, but we are looking for references for biographies - can you offer some? If you need help ask here". We should also encourage other users to help out with references as they are able and willing (remembering this is a volunteer project). If the article is unsourced at the end of the prod time, it gets deleted, but perhaps another nice message to the creator saying "sorry about that, if you'd like it restored all you need to do is have a reference available and ask [here], if you'd like help just ask". There's really no excuse for this to be "bitey".--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, clearly many editors are repelled by this muddling of one point after the next and are happy to help when given a reasonable chance to understand the issue without the drama and disruption. If there is strong support to make any changes then a specific effort to create a sticky prod - whatever that is - will likely still have strong support in a few months or whenever. I'm also unconvinced that rational ways of inviting people to solve the perceived backlog have been exhausted. Perhaps as part of this closing a concerted effort to point to the new efforts to address these concerns could be prominently placed and advertised so that those who aren't interested in the discussion(s) for whatever reasons may still be enticed to help the BLPs that need attention. -- Banjeboi 19:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support We already have a clear policy which forbids the making of rules for their own sake. We already have numerous ways of dealing with unsatisfactory articles including speedy deletion, proposed deletion, AFD , RFC and ordinary editing. We don't need another one. See also Hard cases make bad law and Perfect is the enemy of good. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colonel Warden--Peter cohen (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support because the problem is solving itself nicely. I think the point of the proposal has become moot. But if people wantt o support it that's a reasonable option also. DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per DGG. Hobit (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support because the problem is already resolving itself steadily with the existing editor-friendly approach. Certes (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support in that we should be focusing more time and effort to article improvement rather than even more bureacracy. We should be a collection of articles for which discuss improvements on their talk pages. We have various wikiprojects that concern various kinds of people already in place as well. The way to deal with unsourced BLPs is to just source them or if they are hoaxes that cannot be sourced, then those should be deleted with no controversy. Specific libelous edits can be oversighted from the edit history, while keeping the good edits. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support With a review of progress in 3 month's time. --Plad2 (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per DGG. Assuming progress is made there is no real need to change things. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all of above. Any new processes will take time to implement, understand and apply, whereas improving understanding and implementation of current guidelines will resolve this issue a lot faster, with less angst.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my Phase I statement and DGG and Col.W. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
conditional support as long as an effort is made to get out the word about the BLP sourcing problem as outlined in the general-consensus points above, so that this momentum can continue. -Lyc. cooperi (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - How did this get lost in the shuffle? Above see all these proposals for deceptive ways to create new paths to ultimately delete articles. It is hard enough now for a conscientious person to try to protect our library of information here. If you want a path to destruction, use one that is already well worn and practiced. No new bureaucracy.Trackinfo (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Keep improving articles, rather than deleting them. Ntsimp (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support If those involved with the push to get things happening had engaged with the relevant communities to begin with, we wouldn't have had a crisis to begin with. My own project, WikiProject Australia, has taken care of more than 2/3 of all formerly unsourced BLPs within its remit thanks to good faith efforts by those with access to toolserver and the like - if this was done more widely, then all that would be necessary is to enact rules about future articles and place some kind of notice on the editing screen so people can't say they weren't warned. Orderinchaos 00:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, the whole purpose of this proposal is no new rules. You seem to be agreeing more with part 1 (recruit projects for cleanup, policy change for new articles). Mr.Z-man 00:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better to enforce the rules we already have to deal with the problematic pages and simply leave the community to add sources to the rest. A new rule would do little for the problematic BLPs, since the current rules when enforced allow them to be deleted anyway, and would mostly result in the prodding and deletion of harmless pages (either that or it would go entirely unenforced, in which case there's really no point in having it). The community has shown that it is capable of fixing this problem on its own, and if we can clear the three-year-old backlog of current unsourced BLPs (which certainly looks possible), new ones shouldn't be a problem so long as we continue to pay attention to them. TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 02:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--When we do the 3-month review, we need to have the unreferenced article statistical analysis redone, otherwise I don't see the point.Jarhed (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support although it looks too late to actually look at what ideas have had the most support at this point. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportTotientDragooned (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree, no new rules, no new policy. Existing rules and policy are sufficient and preferable as they place the burden on the community rather than on an individual author. Bryan Hopping T 03:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This actually comes close to addressing the real problem, which is erroneous BLPs. There was no consensus - and there is not now - that a new BLP is needed; the support for this proposal shows that. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 05:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No new bureaucracy. --Kleinzach 05:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it's not the general unsourced, uncontentious BLPs that is the problem, focus on the contentious BLPs under the current rules. MPJ -DK 06:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We've seen during this discussion that current mechanisms work. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Getting bogged down with endless bureaucracy seems counter-productive --Panzer71 (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now can everyone just look at 10 articles and attempt to reference them? I've done my fair share, so I know it's not hard! Lugnuts (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Too much talk, not enough work. Dalliance (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lugnuts has made the most respectable proposition thusfar. All of you stop crying and go do some work - in 24 hours there won't even be a problem anymore. Weakopedia (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support most the BLP issues I've seen via OTRS have for referenced articles, for unreferenced maybe just an unwritten policy of CSD if issuea are raised. Gnangarra 12:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportDreamFocus 12:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. What I've seen all along has been a lack of heed to WP:BLP and WP:N, rather than weaknesses in those policies. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - if things keep on moving in the right direction, and if this can be kept up in the long term, we don't need any new procedures put in place. If things were to stop moving in the right direction, then we can consider the more procedure-bound alternative proposal. -- The Anome (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Support' - The current situation is bad enough, we don't need to make it worse. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support and move on. --Cyclopiatalk 14:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This whole exercise has been a muddle and a fiasco. Let's end it now and go back to work. Rivertorch (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This "new layer of bureaucracy" will become a barrier to entry for newcomers in the BLP project. Wikipedia is already facing a big problem of losing editors. We don't want to drive away interested people. _LDS (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I've waded in and tried to help channel the bureaucratic urges, I'd still be fine if there was no particular change in practice on the basis of this RfC. Jclemens (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support We already have evidence the non-problem is resolving itself. No solution is necessary to solve no problem so no action is needed, no further proposal or no discussion is needed. No reasonable person can even identify the problem, only pointing to hysteria and unidentified numbers largely created by BOT. Even if there is some minor problem hidden in this select pile of articles, we already have solutions to deal with those few problems, if only somebody would specifically identify what they are.Trackinfo (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support People proposing (threat of) deletion have not presented any evidence that unreferenced BLPs are actually a problem that requires deletion to solve. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think I can understand this position! Sounds like some headway has been made by bots against the worst offenders. I think we agree that totally unreferenced articles should not be allowed for very long. There must be some basis for the bio's existence, as for all articles. The original editor must provide something and provide it rather quickly. It need not be voluminous or comprehensive in the stub stage. Student7 (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - For a start this isn't over by a long shot. Furthermore, plenty of alternative solutions are being looked at that haven't even been discussed in this RfC. Okip himself has recently closed an important discussion on the possibility of "Projectifying" certain unreferenced BLPs: User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs. We also need to give the new WikiProject a chance to develop and grow: Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. There are many, many other discussions that need to be brought to the attention of this "court", also. Those discussions are looking at practical ways to deal with uBLPs and that fact alone negates most of the oppose !votes below. --Jubilee♫clipman 21:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Why rush into anything? Sapporod1965 (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support More bureaucracy is likely to just create more problems. This a sound and sensible proposal that deserves to be given a chance. One caveat, however: The problem of how to prevent, or least reduce, newly created unsourced BLPs still needs to be addressed. But this is a good start.--JayJasper (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per DGG and A Nobody -- too much meta-discussion on WP not enough article writing (and esp. rewriting of important but badly written articles both BLP and non). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert(talk) 09:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportTrilobitealive (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportPoulsen (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportMilowent (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The problem of delete-happy, power-seeking wannabe-bosses as outlined by Jorge Stolfi will always be there as long as humans edit. Good editors can blunt the idiocy of the bureaucrats by pointing out that tools are already in place. I'm grateful to folks like Trackinfo and Okip for efforts to improve this project instead of tearing it apart entry-by-entry. 71.203.125.108 (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Let's move on. --Stormbay (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gaurav (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per DGG and Okip's proposal. The problem was never unreferenced BLPs, it was always badly written, often incorrect and negative, BLPs. RayTalk 18:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportE A (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trackinfo speaks for me, and I think I accept anything he writes on this topic. -- BRG (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: we shouldn't use mindless policy as proxy for good sense. There is no substitute for human judgement. In fact, the response of a human to a situation is a reflection on that human's spirit. You can detect the good ones right away using this as the criterion. That automatically elevates the discussion away from robotic implementation of a blind policy. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Supportif it's truly "functionally equivalent" to "Declare a truce and go back to productive editing with no unilateral actions of mass destruction or attempts to coerce editors into participating in some editors pet projects.", as someone stated on talk page. Probably support anyway as apparently closest to my preference for sensible decision. I forgot to sign this earlier. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. -FASTILY(TALK) 04:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support emphatically. -- Ϫ 06:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - everybody, on average please source one BLP per day. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the less time spent discussing what could turn out to be nothing, the better - especially when that time could be spent sourcing BLP's. Arbitrarily0(talk) 20:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Doug (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Oneiros (talk) 11:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportBri Tuohy (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the most reasonable proposal yet. Robofish (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support See above: BLP's are just articles, and unsourced articles about, say, medications, wreak a lot more havoc.Complainer (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportSwarm(Talk) 17:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
""Support"" Richard LaBorde (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
No, we need to include something to deal with new unsourced BLPs. Letting projects deal with the backlog is fine, but at some point, projects are going to get tired of constantly having to maintain their BLPs. Additionally, if we can't keep up this pace of sourcing for a year, there needs to be some sort of procedure other than "start everything over again." I would point out that several people (including myself) who supported Bearcat's proposal did not do so in exclusion of everything else. Mr.Z-man 19:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Bearcat's proposal while it may have the most support in round 2, doesn't hold a flame to the amount of support for Jehochman's proposal in round 1. While I do not like and opposed the BLP PROD proposal, we cannot take round 2 in isolation of round 1. Round 1 gave a clear mandate, by a much larger segment of the community that something along the lines of BLP Prod is desired.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus! 07:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The whole idea behind round 1 being stopped, was that round 2 was supposed to clarify round 1. See all of the comments summarized there. Despite the closing administrator incorrectly declaring consensus, Bearcat's proposal received the most support of the community. Despite Bearcat's proposal receiving the most support of the community, the section your wrote Balloonman, #Proposal_to_Close_This_RfC for a second time incorrectly declared consensus, this time ignoring the most popular proposal. Okip 12:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current sourcing efforts are eventually going to peter out; that is just human nature. Bearcat's proposal is fine; it just doesn't go far enough. The Foundation and Jimbo have told us that the current situation is unacceptable. Leaving things at the status quo fails to deal with newly unsourced BLPs, fails to have a backup plan for dealing with old unsourced BLPs, fails to take into account the wider community consensus (those who only could follow this up through Round 1) and leaves things wide open for a fiat decision by Jimmy, the Foundation, or the Arbitration Committee. NW(Talk) 16:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what you are saying is that this RFC is to establish consensus on how soon to implement the wishes of Jim Wales, which must be implemented no matter what. Which kinda makes this whole project a farce... Weakopedia (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do want to stress here that the status quo isn't what I proposed — I proposed significant revisions to the existing rules which, while stopping short of a special process just for mass-murdering unsourced BLPs, are very much not the status quo. We don't currently have the right tools to deal with the problem effectively; I proposed creating them. And I also proposed that we open the possibility of actual deletion, which in the current process exists only as a toothless and hollow threat rather than an actual possibility, for articles that people still can't or won't deal with once the tools are in place. Anybody who can read my proposal and tell me with a straight face that it's a do-nothing status quo sort of statement is either adamantly refusing to listen to anything that isn't the solution they decided upon before this process even began, or needs to go back to Grade 3 and relearn how to read English properly. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Or we can just have an annual BLP Rfc Mlpearc (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The participation overall in this RfC series demonstrates clearly that something other than the pre-existing processes was neccesary. nb the sentence "Thanks to User:DASHBot, in one short month, 10,000 unreferenced articles have been referenced or removed, and the community is actively removing more." is flawed; yes people are actively working on this, but it is a huge leap of bad logic to say it's entirely "thanks to DASHBot." pablohablo.20:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, your right, I modified this slightly. It truly is, damned if I do, damned if I don't. Per WP:BEANS I won't go into more details. Okip 13:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this would seem to ignore the consensus from Phase I, that a blp-prod is needed. It seems somewhat illogical for us to try and negate that now. Also, I'm not sure I agree that creating a new tag somehow adds bureaucracy. -- Bfigura(talk) 21:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't you speak up in protest after you sold the closing of phase I as a "summary detailing the major points that seem to have most of the support." and the closing administrator instead declared consensus?
The support for Jerochman's proposal was steadily deteriorating as more editors became aware of this RFC, in addition, DGG's proposal had a 90%+ approval when the RFC was prematurely closed. Whether intended or not Bfigura, your proposal to stop phase I for phase II stopped broder consensus from forming, and stopped it at a place which was beneficial to Jerochman's proponents. My biggest mistake in this RFC was trusting that phase II would simply be a "summary detailing the major points that seem to have most of the support." The phase II closing was simply the latest way in which veteran editors have tried to push unpopular policy on the community. Okip 13:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several issues. First, I do hope you're not trying to imply I had some sort of ulterior motive for starting Phase II (especially since you highly endorsed the idea when I ran it by you to see what you thought). Second, I didn't dispute Risker's close because it seemed to be an accurate read. Just because something didn't go the way I wanted it to doesn't mean the process is flawed. Third, I totally disagree that the "reinventing the wheel" proposal was the most popular. Just because it had a high S/O ratio at one point in time doesn't make it the most popular, especially given the low number of votes it got in total. -- Bfigura(talk) 00:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While it is admirable that 10k BLPs have been cleaned up and sourced, this does not ensure we will deal with the issue going forward, which grows daily. As with all special projects, this one will fizzle out, or people will get bored and move on to other things, or DASHbot will break down, or someone will submit the whole thing to MfD and it will be closed down and archived (this has happened to a number of great and well-meaning projects). The end result of this RfC should be a permanent, ongoing solution to the problem of unsourced BLPs, not a temporary project to deal with the existing ones and then a "promise" to work on them going forward. We need policy and process, not promises and the status quo. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed. I think that the position we are in now is ample evidence that something more is needed to ensure that the reduction in unsourced BLPs continues. Kevin (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both because we need something to deal with new unsourced BLPs, and (if the current BLP cleanup effort doesn't continue) to deal with the backlog. The old situation didn't work (and the idea that the majority of the current cleanup is due to the Dashbot notifications, necessary as they were, is laughable), and only the threat of actual deletions got most people going on this. Going back to the old situation is not acceptable. Fram (talk) 11:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not strong enough. In support of previous proposals. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go even further and recommend that those editors who are opposing taking effective action about unsourced BLPs be banned. Cla68 (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of anyone here to whom this would apply. The most inclusionist person I recognize who has commented, elaborates in his statement on the need to use speedy deletion. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about just ignored? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We need to try something new, the existing tools aren't working well enough. YilloslimeTC 00:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's clear WP's existing policies have failed BLPs. Something new is needed. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Bearcat's proposal has a lot of merit but I think it's clear that there is consensus that there will be a process for running through the entire backlog of unsourced BLPs, and another for dealing with new ones that get added. We should be narrowing our focus now to decide what that process will be, not hitting the reset button on the whole thing to say we should do nothing. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting really effing tired of people mischaracterizing my proposal as "do nothing" — it's very much a do-something proposal; it's just not the specific something that some people apparently predetermined as the only kind of something that would be accepted here. I said to put a hard deadline on the process beyond which an article can be deleted if it still hasn't been sourced up. I've actually initiated 40 or so prods in the past month on marginally notable BLPs (some of which I started in the first place) that couldn't be really well-sourced to current standards. The only substantive difference between my proposal and the more hardcore ones here is that I focused principally on the fact that the primary failing of the current process is the fact that we don't have the tools to deal with it effectively. I did not propose doing nothing, and would not endorse any proposal that constituted doing nothing — I pointed out some of the reasons why the current process isn't working, and proposed significant adjustments to it which, while not as dramatic as some people might like, are very much not "the status quo". Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if I misread your proposal. Reading it again I guess I'm not exactly clear on what it entails. Specifically: it says no new policies or procedures, but then endorses a deadline (which would be a procedural change, as there is no deadline right now or even a policy basis for deleting a BLP solely for being unreferenced). - Wikidemon (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't view creating a complex new process exclusively for BLPs, one which is radically different from the way we handle any other unsourced article, and fixing some of the holes in the current process as being the same thing. I identified the two biggest flaws in the current process as being that (a) WikiProjects haven't had an easy way, other than trolling Category:All unreferenced BLPs one article at a time, to identify BLPs that fell within their purview — the existing tool that Coffee pointed out to me below certainly hasn't been promoted well enough to count as already fulfilling this purpose; and (b) because there's no actual deadline for dealing with BLPs, people are free to just ignore the problem on "somebody will get to this eventually" grounds. So my proposal was that first we create a new tool (or better publicize an existing one) to generate each Wikiproject's list of "unreferenced BLPs that belong or may belong to your project". Agree on a hard deadline — not so long that the situation seems trivial and unimportant, but not so short that the project doesn't have adequate time to deal with the fact that the initial list is going to be very long — beyond which articles that still haven't been dealt with will get deleted. Make sure that the wikiprojects know that the situation is important and it's not a project they can ignore anymore, then give them the time to work on the list. Then once the deadline has passed, anything that still hasn't been brought up to snuff actually gets prodded or speedied. It's not a matter of creating a new process and new rules, in my opinion, but of fixing some of the flaws in the process that got us to where we are now. And it's not a matter of saying that we can just leave everything as is, but a matter of giving people a fair and team-oriented chance to help separate the wheat from the chaff. And then we start deleting the chaff.
Wow, thanks for the thoughtful explanation. I'll digest this when I've had a chance to sleep on it, and I'm not eating house-cured olives at a brewpub. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do want the deletion process for BLPs liberalized; I do want to make it easier to get rid of articles that genuinely shouldn't be here. What I've been pointing out is that it needs to happen in tandem with improved tools to make it easier for editors to identify and salvage articles within their fields of expertise. A lot of good editors — including some of the people who've gotten branded as "stone throwers" here — genuinely do want to help solve the problem, but don't necessarily have the necessary tools to be able to do that effectively. And that's what's created a lot of the ill will in this discussion so far — too many people aren't seeing the fact that if we just liberalize the deletion process, and don't also examine our processes for identifying and rescuing articles at the same time, we're going to lose a lot of valid content that people do genuinely want to help repair. But instead, anybody who isn't in complete lockstep with the STICKYPROD EVERYTHING NOW!!! camp is getting branded as a stone thrower or a shooter or a ostrich with his head in the sand, even if we're genuinely interested in finding a workable solution that doesn't poison the well. I'm not saying "don't do anything at all" — I'm saying that we're not doing our job properly if we don't examine and revise both processes at the same time. Bearcat (talk) 06:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nope, sorry. Bearcat's proposal, while laudable, doesn't go nearly far enough. We clearly need a new approach to BLP policy - Alison❤ 03:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - We are evolving as a community, crafting new tools and procedures as they are needed. This is one of those necessary things. Nifboy (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Change is necessary, doing nothing is not an option here. SirFozzie (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal in no way involved "doing nothing". Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is a contentious issue, and we need clarity and guidelines for the community. LK (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Does not deal with the influx of new unsourced BLPs, which would begin to pile up as before. The threat of deletion works wonders when it comes to cleaning up articles not up to scratch. Remove the threat of deletion and sourcing efforts will eventually stall. MER-C 07:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal in no way involves "removing the threat of deletion"; it's about creating the tools that will enable people to deal with it effectively, while actually adding a hard deadline to the existing process so that deletion can actually happen where necessary. One of the flaws of the current process is that it can't. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as a programme for dealing with unsourced BLP should be undertaken. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - Two RFCs on a longstanding proven issue leading to a "Do Nothing" (non-)solution would show en.wiki has an ungovernability problem much more serious than the BLP one.--M4gnum0n (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal in no way involves "doing nothing". Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oppose - The problems generated so far indicate that some guideline is needed. Setreset (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Alison. This proposal isn't strong enough - clearing old unsourced BLPs isn't the end of the story. JamieS93❤ 14:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal addressed that. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and strongly feel I should have been notified. I voted support earlier for other proposals and did not know that there was a proposal to scupper those !votes. Doing nothing is not an acceptable option and we need a new approach to BLP policy. And as much as I want to AGF, I keep getting the feeling that this RFC is being jerked around far too much and whether or not that it is the intention, if you mess around with it enough and don't make sure editors who have participated know what is going on, that increases its changes of failure. Dougweller (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal in no way involves "doing nothing". Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not a reasonable solution. This amounts to hiding one's head in the sand and maintaining that BLPs are not a problem and do not need to be addressed by any systemic changes to Wikipedia. This is patently not true. We need a change in our plans to deal with ALL BLPs, and doing nothing is not an option. Good work on DASHbot for getting through 10,000 or so already; the fact that the problem is being fixed does not mean that we should claim that there isn't a problem. --Jayron32 16:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal in no way involves "doing nothing". Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. The whole point of this RfC is to change something, because the current system is not working. And, there was broad consensus in phase I that changing something is the way to go. Samwb123T (R)-C-E 19:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal in no way involves "doing nothing". Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the consensus here says that you are "doing nothing". And we cannot afford to live with the status quo, as it would unnecessarily risk BLPs to be deleted. – Samwb123T (R)-C-E 22:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, firstly, almost twice as many people expressed support for my proposal as opposition, meaning that the current consensus is almost 2/3 the other way. And secondly, as I've said before, I could accept a consensus that my proposal doesn't go far enough — but I don't think any amount of consensus is allowed to magically redefine what I even said in the first place, especially when I've already taken the time to clarify my position here in light of the fact that several people misunderstood it. I didn't propose that we do nothing, and I don't believe that we should do nothing, and no amount of calling it a do-nothing solution is going to change the fact that I still didn't propose and still don't believe that we should do nothing. Bearcat (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--change is needed. The status quo system is emphatically NOT working so it would be insane to continue on hoping that system would be the institution that would drive the change we need. N2e (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal in no way involves "the status quo". Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We need a solution that is going to work long-term, not just a band-aid for the current problem. Kaldari (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Solutions to the chronic problem of poorly sourced BLP need to be found now. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There's no way we can act like this problem can be handled the old way. I, as Dougweller above, also believe that this RFC is getting jerked around too much, there was one damn closing proposal, we didn't need fifty more, you can just put your comment in the previous freaking post. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal in no way involves "the old way". Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's just fucking annoying. Stop replying to every damn comment, especially when I could care less about your proposal. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Swearing at someone whose proposal you disagreed with for trying to explain their position? Then admitting that you aren't interested in what they have to say anyway? I expected far better from a usually reliable administrator and have lost a lot of faith in you. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He already had tried to "explain" his proposal, now he's simply badgering everyone who called his proposal for what it was. What good does it do to repeat something 20 times? I spoke my thoughts, if that makes you lose faith then it draws question as to what type of faith you're referring to. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not badgering people who called my proposal for what it was. I'm responding to people who called my proposal for what it wasn't...and still isn't. Bearcat (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently we have a different understanding of what the words "wasn't" and "isn't" are. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess maybe we do. So just to clarify, I meant "was not" and "is not". HTH, HAND. Bearcat (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly entitled to reply directly to any comment that characterizes my proposal as being something it isn't. I have no issue with people who express a well-reasoned disagreement about whether my proposal is enough to combat the problem — but I absolutely, unequivocally will not silently stand by and allow people to misrepresent it as a "do-nothing, just stay with the status quo" proposal when it quite clearly isn't. You're free to care or not care about my proposal, as you wish. But you're not free to deliberately misrepresent what my proposal entails, nor am I under any obligation to let you misrepresent it just because my responding to that misrepresentation annoys you. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm perfectly entitled to tell you that repeating the same thing over a dozen times in a row does nothing to solve any problem, it only fuels fires between the two sides of this argument. I already stated at your proposal that I didn't think it did enough, my views have not and will not change, as your view is way to close to the status quo. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually creating a tool which will provide wikiprojects with a readily consultable list of the unsourced BLPs within their project area, where no such tool currently exists and the projects currently have no way to generate a list of the articles in question, is "way too close to the status quo"? Actually putting a hard deadline beyond which an article will be deleted if it still hasn't been sourced up even after that tool is in place, where no such deadline currently exists and articles are thus allowed to simmer on the back burner forever in the guise of eventualism, is "way too close to the status quo"? Actually putting in a zero-tolerance rule for new unsourced BLPs is "way too close to the status quo"? Actually making a concerted effort to actually apply existing rules such as "redirect musician of single-band notability to the band" is "way too close to the status quo"? If that's true then you're certainly not on the same Wikipedia I'm on. Bearcat (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And again you make more baseless claims about your proposal. Your proposal didn't list anything other than one tool that you wanted that would "technically" help WikiProjects by making lists of unreferenced BLPs, and claimed that this didn't already exist, well it does, it's called WolterBot. Your proposal, definitely didn't lay down any specifics, especially in regards to a "hard deadline" for deletion (even though you claim it did). You never mentioned anything about a zero-tolerance policy on new unsourced BLPs. And applying existing policies is the status quo that you claim isn't what your proposing. It's been mine and my fellow administrators mission to try to enforce the existing policies, but that has been shot down time and time again, so I'm already quite aware that the continuation of our current policies will go nowhere. So apparently it's you who is living in la la land on Wikipedia, as you haven't proposed one thing that would be any different than what we already have done, are doing, or have already attempted. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Baseless claims, my ass. I most certainly did propose a hard sourced-or-it-goes deadline; the fact that I left the specific length of deadline up for further discussion hardly means I didn't propose one at all. I most certainly did explicitly state that I favoured zero tolerance for new unsourced BLPs. And numerous existing policies that would help with the backlog — not solve it by themselves, I never said that, but help with it — are actually not being applied in a consistent and concerted way, and the tools that would enable wikiprojects to actually deal with this effectively actually do not exist, or aren't being adequately publicized. WolterBot? Great — if you're aware that it exists. Most users don't; I've certainly never seen it in actual use, and I get around the nooks and crannies of this place a lot more than most editors. And as almost everybody here (except, apparently, you) knows perfectly well, I'm one of the biggest hardasses for quality sources in Wikipedia's entire administrator's pool — so if you think that I'm in the "shooting down" camp, you're sadly mistaken. I'm actually willing to bet that I've prodded or speedied more unsourceable BLPs in the past week alone than you ever have. And my entire view on this is not that there shouldn't be a sledgehammer — it's that we shouldn't bring out the sledgehammer until after we make sure that the community has the tools and a reasonable amount of time to do what we're asking them to do, and then bring out the sledgehammer on whatever gets left behind. So kindly don't presume to tell me that you know what I think better than I do — because as near as I can tell, I'm the only one who's actually attempted to offer a solution that addresses the problem without simultaneously driving 75% of Wikipedia's volunteer base away in frustration. My whole point is that there needs to be a way to do what needs to be done here without alienating everyone in the process; the solution needs to be one that builds the community in a positive, community-oriented way. But apparently some people here would rather just use the stick and forget about the carrot. We need to be firm about sourcing, yes. But that doesn't mean we need to act like jerks in the process. Bearcat (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Sigh*... "give the project a reasonable amount of time to work on that list as a group — with the understanding that once that deadline has passed, the article will then become eligible for the existing prod process if it still hasn't been sourced up." is inferring something much less than a "hard deadline". Stop with the antics, this isn't a who's dick is bigger contest. The amount of work you have done might be commendable, but your proposal is not worthy of more than a second look over.
Just because no one (or perhaps just yourself) knows about WolterBot doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, can't be used, or isn't being used; that illusion only exists in your imagination. Not only have I seen it used in several projects, it works extremely well. The main point you're missing with this whole argument, is that this problem has been around for over 8 years, and the community hasn't resolved it. Using your basic methods of having us continue to use the same policies that we've used for nearly a decade is ridiculous. Yes it's well understood that it might alienate some editors when we create more policies that make the BLP area stricter. But is it really a net negative to the project if we lose a few editors to the amount of credibility we would gain if we had new and much more strict policies regarding BLPs? No. In fact I'd be happy if the only thing we lost were a few people who wouldn't follow policies set out to ensure that we are actually a verifiable encyclopedia. It isn't acting like a jerk to ask people to put their opinions aside and follow some simple set out rules; in fact quite the opposite. Your proposal does not address half of the problems we are having with unsourced BLPs, or even BLPs in general, it only asks for a few small things on top of what we already have that wouldn't change crap. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that just asking people to follow the rules is "being a jerk". But creating a complex new process for mass stickyprodding all unsourced BLPs, without giving the interested editors sufficient notice and sufficient time to do something about it — keeping in mind that the original author, who as things currently stand is the only person who's actually been notified of the issue with any individual article, may not be here anymore — is "being a jerk". And that's for articles which have already been tagged; if there's no notification process in place, future articles may well disappear without anybody being informed or getting the chance to deal with it at all. And that's "being a jerk".
It's all very well and nice to say that the tool exists; what you're missing is that the onus isn't on the wikiprojects to magically/psychically know that it exists if nobody has taken the time to ensure that each wikiproject has been specifically informed that it exists and how to use it. I participate in many wikiprojects and have never seen it used or even mentioned WRT this purpose — and I'm not known around here as an editor who has my head up my ass and doesn't know things that are common knowledge to everybody else. If I don't know about something on here, that says far more about the something than it does about me — because I'm quite well-known as one of the administrators who has a finger in just about everything.
So the tool I asked for already exists? Great. Now somebody needs to take the time to make sure that all the wikiprojects know about it and how to use it — it's the bot team's job to advertise it properly, not the projects' job to just magically know about it. But you can't have a liberalized deletion process without an improved notification process as well — because articles that should be here, and are easily repairable, will slip through the cracks and get deleted if the current notification process isn't improved to match it. In the current process, the original author — who may or may not even be here anymore — is the only person who's guaranteed to get a notification, and that simply is not good enough.
Again: I am in favour of, not opposed to, allowing deletion of unsourced BLPs; I'm a stickler for quality sources. But the current article maintenance and notification and repair processes, are not good enough to match a liberalized deletion process. You can't improve one without improving the other one at the same time — because if you do, then it becomes possible for an article to get deleted without any active editor who may be able to fix it ever knowing that the article's even under threat in the first place. And that would be "being a jerk about it". Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Inertia is no longer an option. I don't believe for a second that the current rate will be maintained as soon as the RfC is over if this specific proposal is taken as the overall conclusion. The fact that it took the entire process to actually get those 10k articles referenced within a month is ample evidence enough that absent such exceptional circumstances, the problem isn't being addressed. MLauba (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal in no way involves "doing nothing". Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for most of the reasons stated above, with apology to those who feel bullied by all cleanup efforts. Bearcat's proposal will in practice be hardly any different than doing nothing. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alison and FloNight. - Josette (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if the "toolspolicies and procedures we already have" have allowed a backlog of 40K+, then they arent the appropriate tools policies and procedure we need to address the problem. Active Banana (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I proposed creating new tools. Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was using "tools" more metaphorically. " a better notification tool," aint gonna solve the problem Active Banana (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't suggest that, taken in isolation, it would. I proposed several modifications to the current process, including an actual hard deadline beyond which BLPs that are still left unsourced do get deleted. That doesn't actually exist in the current process; instead, unsourced articles just linger because there's no real consequence in place for not bothering to do anything. What I'm concerned about is finding a solution that builds the community; unless we give people the tools to deal with the problem more effectively, mass instant stickyprodding will pretty much destroy it. Deleting an article about a topic that should be in an encyclopedia is every bit as harmful to the project as keeping an article about a topic that shouldn't be here — we need to balance those two imperatives and ensure that we don't err in either direction. Bearcat (talk) 06:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. The BLP issue needs proper sorting and will not be swept under the rug. I suspect that a fair chunk of the cleared backlog amounts to lightweight referencing and de-tagging and that the drop in the BLPs categorized as unreferenced is misleading due to efforts targeting the categorization itself. Jack Merridew 18:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is misleading because it is a net drop. As large numbers of unreferenced articles are still being identified the total dealt with is thousands greater. ϢereSpielChequers 19:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that many unsourced BLPs are still being discovered, and that more await discovery. I also believe that a great number have been de-tagged and uncategorized by editors intent on keeping them without much regard to the ethical concerns underlying the BLP policy. That said, I do believe a goodly number of unreferenced BLPs have been reasonably reviewed and edited by reasonable people. We allow most anyone to edit here and that opens us up to the full spectrum of human ethics, intelligence and competence. The BLP issue is the tip of the iceberg. We have inadequately referenced articles of all sorts and we need to raise the sourcing standard across the board. Some of the specific reasons for the BLP policy do not apply to everything, but the goal, for some, is a sourced and verifiable encyclopaedia that uses high quality sources, not shite dredged up from the millions of unreliable sources that are a mere Google search away. Jack Merridew 22:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone is detagging and uncategorising correct {{unreferencedBLP}} tags without improving the articles then that would be controversial. Can you give diffs? ϢereSpielChequers 22:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jack is in part right here--the poorly referenced BLPs are more of a problem than the unreferenced--but this is not just the BLPs that might now be being over-quickly sourced, but the much greater number of poorly referenced pre-existing BLPs. Has Jack any plan to fix these? I know one way to help fix them both, which is to avoid interfering with the people who are actually trying to fix articles by pressuring them to work too fast. DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mr.Z-man, Balloonman, and Alison.... among others. Lara 21:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Z-man and Alison. And on a personal note, we clearly need a way to deal with new unreferenced BLPs. Allowing the problem to grow is not a solution, just creates more work and will lead to a great controversy when in future we find we have 250k articles and people are yelling OMG YOU'RE GOING TO DELETE 250K ARTICLES. Also, while I do not believe that having resonable requirements for articles on living people is a great impediment to the majority of editors, and in fact it can encourage some editors to participate, clearly it's far more annoying to have worked on an article for a long time, only to find it disappear or may disappear 2 years in the future, when if you'd been informed of the requirements at the time, you could either have fixed it when you were more familiar with the material or not spent so much time on it. In other words, informing people of the problem early on will often make things better rather then worse. Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As per Mr. Z-Man, Alison, and Balloonman. — SpikeToronto 18:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - We are here because the existing processes have allowed the creation of tens of thousands of totally unsourced BLPs. While this is not THE problem (nothing is) it is certainly A major problem and I think that past history has shown that the goalposts have to be moved to get continuing action. While the backlog has become smaller we need a solution for when the current enthusiasm wanes - Peripitus(Talk) 04:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Balloonman. MBisanztalk 20:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
I agree with the proposal in and of itself and some of the rationale.
But timing has made things tricky. That is (and not just with this), it's hard, if not impossible, to gauge the difference between how much support any given proposal has among people participating at any given time, and whether any proposal is most representative of the community.
Newly created unsourced BLP issue isn't resolved by this proposal. Having editors fixing articles on one side while others editors create unsourced articles on the other side is suicide game. --KrebMarkt 19:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no preference, as long as something is done. Brambleclawx 17:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
I think the distinction between the closing proposals concerns new BLPs. User:Balloonman's proposal would change relevant policy pages to make stronger statements about sourcing, at least on BLPs. His proposal also provides for sticky WP:PRODs. User:Okip's proposal does not include these two provisions. Maurreen (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this a little out-of-process? A proposal to support another proposal? Why don't we just discuss this over at the section for Bearcat's proposal? I think there's a lot of good stuff Bearcat says, but it was an early proposal and people have added a number of good ideas since. I think we do need some additional resolve and procedural guidance instead of just saying we're going to continue as-is under existing policy, only enforce it this time. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidemon, it looks like your question is addressed to me, but I don't understand why. My comments immediately above are only explanatory; they don't take a position. Maurreen (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if that wasn't clear. I was addressing Okip's proposal, which seems to be a proposal to accept Bearcat's proposal. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 11:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see a method of sending out notices to all wikiprojects talk pages. Too many editors do not pay attention to the noticeboards or policy discussions such as these. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢ 04:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than just crossing out the bit about DASHbot (which has been highly effective, actually) and adding a bit about the community, Okip might want to refactor that statemnt altogther: Thanks to to the mass efforts by WikiProjects and individual editors, often with help from User:DASHBot and other bots and tools such as catscan, in one short month... As it stands, the statemnt seems to negate the impact of DASHbot! Just a thought... --Jubilee♫clipman 22:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I get the essential gist of all of these posts, & based on my own impression of "Phase I", one group of editors was so concerned about existing articles being deleted before they could be fixed that they ignored the rest of the matter being discussed: what to do with new biographical articles on living people which lack sources. (This is the problem Balloonman's points 1 & 2 address.) My sense is that there is a general agreement that these articles need to be handled quickly -- speaking for myself, either they are sourced or deleted is one solution I could live with -- yet there is one school of thought which makes a very good point that new users who do this must be handled far more leniently than established editors because they don't know the rules. Maybe this summary, in all of its vagueness, should be substituted in that section. -- llywrch (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have said it several times, only to watch it get deleted, moved or hidden by other editors with an agenda. We already have standards and a system in place. We already have a self-appointed new article patrol. If an article cannot justify its notability, we have a public place where these items are discussed and analyzed: AfD. There, an unreferenced article WILL GET CHECKED and double-checked. If the references are not included in the article after that degree of scrutiny, it is only the laziness of the multitude of editors who have looked at the article. If it fails to prove its case (meaning the sources don't back it up), it will get deleted . . . along with useful articles that just don't muster enough support. You can start using it today to take care of this "problem" instead of creating a new secret bureaucracy to abuse more content.Trackinfo (talk) 06:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're misreading what I wrote. I was not advocating any one position; instead, I was trying to explain the flaws in Ballonman's summary of what the consensus was. And when I wrote "these articles need to be handled quickly", I was not indicating any specific proposed or existing solution -- only that they "need to be handled quickly." (If I were to endorse any specific solution for new biographical articles on living people, I would more than likely endorse what you just wrote, Trackman. I'm still not convinced that we need more rules.) And lastly -- but most importantly -- I was also trying to point out that until this step exactly what to do with these new articles was overlooked by critics of these proposals who were understandably concerned that existing articles would be deleted, not fixed. In other words, no real consensus yet exists on that part of the issue. -- llywrch (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thoroughly disappointed
When the {{unreferenced}} tag was developed, straw poll was held *among the editors who had designed it* about where it should be placed. There were about 30 votes cast (out of a universe of perhaps 10,000 regular editors). These comprised 9 votes for for "top of article page", 10 votes for "bottom of article page", and 13 votes for "talk page". Needless to say, the obvious fourth alternative "nowhere" was not even in the ballot.
So, if that tag is now showing at the top of hundred of thousands of articles, it is because nine editors wanted it there, twenty-three did *not* want it there, and 9,970 editors did not have a chance to give their opinion.
A similar story applies to the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. I found a straw poll in the Notability talk page about a dozen or so specific questions. The questions were all in jargon (like "PROD" in this RfC) which I was unable to decipher, so presumably only the people who had been involved in the writing of the guidelines voted. There were less than 200 votes, and some of the items in the ballot passed with a tight majority — that is, less than 1% of the pool of active editors. Unfortunately I could not determine whether the final declared "consensus" honored these votes, or — as in the case of the {{unreferenced}} tag — the minority opinion prevailedanyway.
As for this RfC, I see that 400 editors took part in phase I, 40 took part in phase II. The honest thing to do would be to declare this RfC hopelessly bungled and start all all over, beginning with the basic questions — like "are unrefernced BLPs a real problem?". Instead, it seems that this RfC will follow the same path as the other straw polls: the proposers stubbornly insist with their thesis, ignoring all data and arguments to the contrary, until all oposers get tired and leave; and then they will declare the "consensus" to be whatever they like.
In the summary to Phase 1 it was stated that all participants were concenred with the welfare of WIkipedia. I beg to differ. People who really care about Wikipedia should want to know, first, whether the unsourced BLPs are a real problem, and second, whether the proposed solution will do more good than harm. I don't see this worry among the proposers of the RfC. Indeed, it seems that the surest way to end a thread in this discussion is to post concrete numbers and examples. Instead of debating that data and what it means, the proposers merely shift to other threads.
It is clear to me that the original purpose of this RfC was not to find the best way to deal with the "problem" (or to find out whether the "problem" was real), but merely to obtain some legitimacy for what was a predetermined decision, namely that unsourced BLPs are to be deleted. If there is one thing that is clear from this discussion, is that unsourced BLPs are harmless and deleting them solely for being unsourced is extremely harmful.
The only explanation that I can find for the persistent wish to delete unsourced BLPs is psychological, namely the "lust for power" of editors who are tired of being just "workers" and want to be "bosses". In academia, were I work, this sort of thing happens all the time: people get tired of being just ordinary professors or researchers, and try to move to a position where, insted of working, they direct and control the work of other people.
How can one rise to be a "boss" in Wikipedia? Certainly not by editing contents: even if you edit 10,000 articles over several years and create a handful of "featured" ones, you will be just a "worker" like any of the other 10,000 regular editors. The same applies to any work (such as sourcing) that requires reading each article and thinking about its contents: no one can do that on more that 50-100 articles per day, the same top rate as for contents editing. Moreover, in that sort of work you often have to justify your edits to other "workers", and that puts you in the same "social level" as them.
A "boss" must do something that affects hundreds of thousands of articles, and does not require interacting with "workers" at their same level. It must be something definitive that an ordinary "worker" cannot stop or undo. It must be something that clearly put the "boss" on a higher level than the "workers".
That is the only explanation I can find for why we got the editorial tags at the top of articles. Robot-assisted tagging does not require thinking, so one can easily tag 1000 articles a day. The tagger is clearly "boss" because the tags are not "work", but "comands": every editorial tag says "I want this to be done, so some worker had better do it". A tagger is clearly above ordinary editors, because (by definition) the only way these can remove a tag is by complying with the wish of the tagger. Article tags have also the "advantage" that they violate the basic rule, "all editorial comments must go in the talk page": that is an advantage because (as in real life) one's social status is measured by the rules one can violate impunely.
And that is also the only explanation I can think for this RfC and the way it was carried out. The real "problem" of the unsourced BLPs is that the "bosses, after sticking hundreds of thousands of {{unreferenced}} tags, realized that they had been largely ignored — that is, the "workers" did not rush out to comply to their commands. That was doubly frustrating: not only it negated the authority of the "bosses", but made them look silly for wasting all that tagging work for nothing.
Enter then the idea of deleting all unsourced BLPs. Like tagging, deleting is something that can be done very quickly en masse, without having to read the articles. Like tagging, deletinon cannot be undone by ordinary editors. Even if each deletion has to be voted in the AfD, the place and timing of the vote ensures that voters will be mostly "bosses", and the final decision is made by a "boss": if one or two "workers" happen to see the AfD all in time and cast their vote, they can be just ignored.
That explains why no one here seems interested in statistics that prove that unsourced BLPs are harmless, or in the damage that deleting them might do. That explains why the proposers adamantly refuse to allow an editor other than the tagger to remove a tag without complying with its command. That is why they adamantly refuse to extend the AfD voting period beyond 7 days: for, if more "workers" get a chance to vote, they may out-vote the "bosses". After all, a Master of a thousand Slaves is not a Master at all if he lets even one Slave disobey his commands, or lets Slaves vote on wether to obey them.
Five years ago, Wikipedia could be defined as "three milion encyclopedia articles which anyone can edit". I am afraid that today it has become "a decadent social networking site with 10,000 members who have three million articles to play with". One just has to look at the pages in the "User talk:", "Wikipedia talk:", and "Template talk:" to realize that most Wikipedia decisions are being made by a small minority of "bosses" who seem to derive more plasure out of social interaction (and, in particular, the sense of power that comes from "bossing" over other members) than on making real substantial contributions to Wikipedia.
At the root of the problem is that Wikipedia's decision-making mechanism is thoroughly broken. As we saw here, and in countless other cases, any clique of ten editors can write a rule or standard, vote it among themselves, and declare it "consensus". Almost every guideline in Wikipedia:* was decided in this way. No country could survive more than a few years with such a "randomcratic" government; and it seems that Wikipedia cannot either.
All the best (if still possible to hope), --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly true, but as you say, that's how WP works and you can't change it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It can be fixed. But the first step is that Mr. Wales must step down. I don't think that will happen anytime soon, so defer to Mr. Fisher's conclusion. :/ Okip 03:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one issue with this sort of proposal (as also with the other one in vogue) is that a handful of editors quickly generate a lot of text. Since most of us have day jobs or school or families that need our attention, within the span of a few hours the sheer volume of words generated becomes unreadable and we cannot meaningfully participate in the process until it comes to a 'vote'. By then, of course, there is no way that we can comment on the meaningfulness of the assumed underlying problem (because that is rarely included in the community vote). I'm not sure if there is a work around for this sort of thing, perhaps early and well advertised straw polls with simple questions ("In your opinion unreferenced BLPs are a problem yes/no" sort of thing) that would help the proposal builders see whether they're touting solutions that are looking for problems. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful description (in its cogency) of Wikipedia from Jorge Stolfi. A tour-de-force. The virtual 'power' thing on WP is extraordinary. (You'd think we were participating in the French or Russian Revolution, not just in terms of the personal struggles involved and the inflated oratory, but also in the creation and mindless use of new jargon.) Many of our problems are due to inadequate processes. Parliaments, diets, congresses etc all have elaborate rules for preventing debates from getting out of hand. Wikipedia doesn't. This Rfc may be disappointing, but it's relative clean. There are worse. --Kleinzach 04:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Perhaps the creation of a democratically-elected Wikipedia "legislature" that makes rules and policies would help. Sapporod1965 (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
beware, this is the path of Wikipedia:Esperanza which will never be allowed to fly. maybe we will get german wikipedia adult supervision (shrug)
strong support jorge, i see little reason to get excited about fixing the UBLP taggers "problem". the quality of wiki is not to be measured by pseudo numeric measures. i for one will be ignoring the dysfunctional attempts to manage-by-numbers wiki editing, and go back to my own agenda of article creation of snowball notable articles, which to my mind, is a far greater problem: i.e. how many red link articles do not exist for which there is ample evidence. i can toil at this task mostly disregarded by these non-managers, with only the occasional sharp duel at AfD, oh and occasionally recreating Speedy and Proded articles, which i note on the talk page. Pohick2 (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
supportI've thought about doing the same, just ignoring this manufactured emergency and devoting my attention to the areas where I know I can help the project: in my case, translating as well as article writing and improvement in the areas where I have expertise and research skills. The problem is, meanwhile articles that people want and need to have available and that I am not well equipped to write and reference, will get deleted. After all, it is a collaborative project - none of us has expertise in everything, or time to write and improve all the needed articles! The harm does affect the entire project, and us. It creates a genuine quandary, to my way of thinking, in terms of where I devote my time. (As well as feeling discouraged and disrespected. I haven't done much of importance since this blew up - I keep thinking, why bother?) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i'm way past the point of caring about the the reputational harm to the total project. the harm does not affect me. if i can carve out a subset of well written articles that rise to the top of a google search, that act as a nexus for study of the references, then i will have done my job. if the wiki is less than it could be, then that is the fault of the failed leaders, and community that has failed to act in responsible ways. but they can't destroy the project in a Götterdämmerung: There'll Always Be an England. Pohick2 (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG SUPPORT - EVERYBODY PLEASE READ JORGE STOFI's ENTRY=THOROUGHLY DISAPPOINTED= IN ITS ENTIRETY. I held my comments so this could take a prominent position at the bottom of the page for as long as possible. This is the most insightful and accurate summation for the real problem anybody has produced. Better than I could have hoped to produce. It is must reading for all. This gets my complete endorsement.Trackinfo (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. - This is a major debate. It's not about somethng like should the <ref></ref> tage come berfore or after the full stop (period). It echoes the tones of my dozen or so short contribs to this RfC, and the Policy notes on my own user page. EVERYBODY PLEASE AT LEAST READ JORGE STOFI's ENTRY - the rest of this RfC has clouded the issues and got (gotten) out of control - some of us can even be seen to have contradicted ourselves because there weren't any other offered options of choice in the many sub consensuses of consensuses.--Kudpung (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG SUPPORT. Finally someone speaking my language. Zenexp (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...you realize, of course, that you three just voted in favor of a comment against voting. ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I voted in favor of no further action on this RfC. Stop the rest of this stupidity. All of these other proposals make improper assumptions clouding reality to achieve a goal.. Voting, and subsequent policy making based on these improper assumptions should be thoroughly rejected.Trackinfo (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The observation that much of WP organization and pioneering and trend-setting (with both positive and negative outcomes in various cases, and at all levels) are carried out by people who act as "bosses" and do little constructive work of other sorts is true, but is simply a mirror of every other process in the world. This is a volunteer project, and there's an unbelievable amount of work to be done. And people will just damned well do it, because this is a wiki, and it even has explicit policies and near-policies supporting initiative over caution. Some people have skills better suited to organizing that work, others doing the bulk of it, and still others polishing the details. Furthermore, when it comes to leading, early leaders are often extremely opinionated and stubborn (otherwise the order they are trying to form would melt back into the chaos), later leaders (who often have to supplant the original visionaries) are stabilizing but excessively promotional/evangelical (demanding that everyone agree with the project/process in question, rather than with their personal vision, which may not even be in evidence), while mature-phase leadership is all about "don't rock the boat" and "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". There are entire books about this. Yes, there will always be some jackasses that insert themselves as leaders when in fact they have no leadership skills at all and only want the power to push their own agendas. This is true on the stage of world politics, and the schoolyard, and Wikipedia administration, and even the control and direction of individual WP templates only a dozen people give a damn about. Human nature. Deal. PS: I say this as someone who has quite intensely locked horns with some of the specific "bosses" that Jorge Stofi complains of, since 2006. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 05:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jorge Stolfi's point (amongst others) is that the situation is getting steadily worse. "Five years ago, Wikipedia could be defined as "three milion encyclopedia articles which anyone can edit". I am afraid that today it has become "a decadent social networking site with 10,000 members who have three million articles to play with". " I agree with this. --Kleinzach 08:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, five years ago, Wikipedia didn't even have one million articles, let alone three... Still, a warm applause for our 10,000 editors who find the time, inbetween their social networking, to create 1200 articles a day. Fram (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So in 2005 a majority wanted it on the article, not on the talk page, and of those, the idea of putting it at the top or the bottom is quite evenly split. In many articles, it is actually placed at the bottom. And e.g. David Gerrard, who supported "bottom", later supported "top" as well ([[Template talk:Unreferenced/Archive 7#Placement). From e.g. Template talk:Unreferenced/Archive 5#Placement, it is clear that the original outcome of the RfC was respected in the template documentation (i.e. you are free to place it at top, bottom, or talk), but that actual use (i.e. not by these 30 people that voted, but by the 10,000 that use it) made it clear that the top of the article page was and is the usual location. Policy is descriptive, not restrictive, and in this case, it is obvious that an old RfC has been replaced with what actually happens in the field, so to speak. That is the reason that the current doc wording of "put it at the top" only was implemented in 2008, not after the RfC.[2] Your statement at the beginning that "So, if that tag is now showing at the top of hundred of thousands of articles, it is because nine editors wanted it there, twenty-three did *not* want it there, and 9,970 editors did not have a chance to give their opinion." is thus clearly incorrect. More correct would be:
"So, if that tag is now showing at the top of hundred of thousands of articles, it is because the vast majority of editors actually using the template put it there, despite a relatively small RfC and the template doc not giving any preference." Fram (talk) 08:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with your reasoning - the initial voters established a precedent amongst themselves which was then pushed on the community until it (mostly) fell into line. New editors and editors who were not involved in the original 'unreferenced' discussion generally followed the guidelines as they saw them being implemented. Policy starts small, amongst but a few editors, who use the policy to influence how others see policy. Regardless of the reality of most of Wikipedians it is the small (in this case very small) group of editors who have formed a consensus amongst themselves that have formed policy, most others simply following what they see implemented, thinking it to be a firmer policy than it in reality is. Weakopedia (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you haven't read what I wrote. The 2005 RfC determined that there was no preference for either placement (top, bottom or talk). This was reflected in the template documentation. But by 2008, it became clear to everyone involved that in reality, the template was nearly always placed at the top of the page. Only then was the text on the template page changed to reflect actual practice instead of the initial outcome of the limited participation RfC. People in general don't follow whatever is decided on such RfCs and whatever is written on template page documentation. In a similar vein, the template should supposedly not be used on stub pages, but in reality thousands upon thousands of stubs are tagged as unreferenced. In general, people don't follow those guidelines, the guidelines eventually follow the people. Fram (talk) 10:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please try and assume good faith in your contributions. I did read your comment and, as stated, I disagree with it. Regards. Weakopedia (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All right, then you ignore facts to be able to reiterate incorrect comments. "the initial voters established a precedent amongst themselves which was then pushed on the community until it (mostly) fell into line. " is definitely, clearly, not what happened, even though it is the basis for the long post by the original poster and all the supports. It's hard to pay a lot of attention to people who distort reality in such a way and base their complaints on that distortion. Fram (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are unwilling or unable to show good faith then you should act on your instincts not to pay attention to this section and remove yourself from it. Thanks. Weakopedia (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and then get people claiming consensus when their proposal (whatever this intends to propose) gets little support but even less opposition. Anyway, good faith is something lost once evidence to the contrary appears. Editor claims A, other editor refutes A with arguments, and a third editor replies that he still believes A, without any effort to get actual arguments, facts, evidence... Why should any further good faith be extended to such editors? You disagree with reality, fine, but then don't complain when your comments carry little weight. Fram (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm one of the editors who adds such tags, though in my defence it is only a small part of what I do here. I use wp:friendly to add the tags, as I suspect do the editors who do much of this tagging. Change Friendly to tag at the end of the article and that's where my tags will go. ϢereSpielChequers 16:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Whilst I find Jorge Stolfi's comments compelling, I am inclined nonetheless to ask, 'So what?' (Some) people will always seek to exploit systems (real or virtual) for no other reason than to assert themselves. For those not so inclined, the issues are going to be how much such activities impinge on their own ideals, and if that impact is more than tolerable, what they can realistically do about it. Whilst in principle I don't warm to the idea of deleting unsourced BLP articles, in practice, while rehabilitating a number of them under the WP:Composers project, few of them would have made me lose any sleep. Of course one should always remember Heinrich Heine's prophecy, 'when they start burning books they end up burning people'....... which is reflected in the personal animosity that we sometimes see in edit wars....I am afraid that those of us who indulge in WP as a displacement activity will always be at a disadvantage to those who use it as an alternative to Second Life.--Smerus (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jorges opinion which is the most credible view of Wikipedia I have yet to read. Weakopedia (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support in substance Jorge's analysis of how Wikipedia operates. This is a standard phenomenon for votes with a low turnout. If it's to be corrected, assuming there isn't a massive culture change, somebody needs enforcement powers, such as the elected legislature suggested above by Sapporod. Peter jackson (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This opinion which has less !votes WILL be ignored when someone closes this RFC. So if you want your voice to be HEARD, make SURE to also comment on the above positions also (yes/no; support/oppose).
One of the most ludicrously confusing issues is that this entire discussion is split between this page, and its and its talk page.--Kudpung (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jorge, trust me there was no intention to hide this RfC. In fact, there was a strong push to have this phase of the RfC on the same page as the original to ensure that people who had watchlisted phase 1 would know that it was ongoing. It was my understanding that this is why this page was here, but looking at the history, it appears as if Phase 1 was moved and Phase 2 was moved to have the same name as phase 1---this would have broken the link as people who had watchlisted phase 1 would now be watching the archive not the new RfC. I can pretty much guarantee that this was not intentional as the person who made the moves was the one most adamant about keeping it on the same page so that people who had watchlisted phase 1 would know that phase 2 had begun. It was a mistake on his part and on our part for assuming that the the move was done correctly. For that we do share some of the blame, but not all of it. You share some as well. If this was as important as you make out, then you should have revisited the page to find out what was going on. Had you done so, you would have been aware. Similarly, you bear responsiblity in not keeping yourself informed that phase 2 was intended to being within day of finished phase 1---that was always the intent and was evident from phase 1's talk page as well as the closing statements.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus! 15:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that's how it works? I've found that if an article is moved and then moved back both titles are then on my watchlist. Peter jackson (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I had assumed that what you said is how it would work, but it was the only possibility that would explain why Jorge et al didn't see the ongoing discussions. In this case, it wasn't moved back. We have articles A and B. Article A is moved to C, article C is now watch listed. Article B is now moved to where Article A used to, but it is a new article not the original one in A's place. If the link is recreated with the new article, then Jorge has no defense for failing to notice that the RfC was ongoing.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus! 18:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is only a handful of people who are able to follow the discussion here, those are the ones who are leading these proposals, deleting/moving/hiding comments and then presenting their side of the plan in prominent positions to get the sheep to vote for them. This entire discussion is a fraud to achieve a goal and must be discarded.Trackinfo (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish that had been just a tl;dr rant, but unfortunately there's an awful lot of truth in there. Congratulations for daring to give the emperor an honest assessment of his new clothes. As I moaned above, there's a lack of clarity as to whether we're voting for what we want, or for what forced change we'll reluctantly accept. Certes (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support As a once-zealous Wiki-contributor who has slowed down drastically due to Deletionists (only a little of ~my~ content, but a LOT of others' content ---redlinked many articles I would have wanted to have read) I'm pleased to encounter Jorge Stolfi's section above and below. Cramyourspam (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)CramYourSpam[reply]
Strong endorsement - The facts set out above need to be given full consideration by all of WP not just by the editors at this RfC. In particular:
As we saw here, and in countless other cases, any clique of ten editors can write a rule or standard, vote it among themselves, and declare it "consensus". Almost every guideline in Wikipedia:* was decided in this way. No country could survive more than a few years with such a "randomcratic" government; and it seems that Wikipedia cannot either.
Things can change. However, Jimbo Wales is not to blame for the way the system has been been skewed by certain admins and their pet editors. JW is simply another editor who happens also to have co-invented the concept of Wikipedia. I note he has avoided these discussion altogether and indeed avoids all discussion on proceedure, as far as I can tell, beyond the odd personal letter posted at the top of special pages etc every now and then. People can ignore those if they chose.
The main problem, as far as I can tell, is that certain admins simply block-vote alongside their handservant-editors in certain crucial discussions. This is, effectively, vote-stacking. The problem is not limited to these processes, either. WikiProjects vote on certain issues in their own talkpages, make "style guidelines", fail to seek consensus for these form the rest of WP, then force these "guidelines" on other non-project editors. When those other editors complain about their work being deleted/reverted etc, the Wikiproject members simply point them to their dogmatic "guidelines" and say "we decided this already, stop making us have to explain a zillion times and read what we are telling you to do". (See this ongoing RfC, for example.) The problem, then, is not merely endemic to certain areas of WP it is an epidemic effecting the whole of WP. --Jubilee♫clipman 21:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment mindless pursuit of quantity while ignoring quality leads to very bad outcomes Active Banana (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The dl;dr version: Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Editorial_process - WP:AGF → Wikipedia's governance is crap ∴ Wikipedia is doomed. Right. The idea that policy making here is anything less than a sausage factory is not new.
But on topic, considering that the dominant opinions to come out of Phase I were that the BLP problem needed to be addressed, but not at the cost of mass deletions, it's a bit odd to then say that since this RfC had lower participation, we should start it over, or scrap it an do nothing. I don't really see how starting another RfC on the same topic is likely to achieve higher participation. -- Bfigura(talk) 05:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jorge Stolfi wrote No country could survive more than a few years with such a "randomcratic". I have to respectfully remark that Jorge overestimates the scope of democracy in countries. If talking numbers, the %% of "real-life" lawmakers in country populations is way far less than in wikipedia (if you forget about these millions of dormant/abandoned/blocked/stupid/anon accounts). Also let's face it: people have different interests and skills. And stratification of work and responsibilities is just as natural as in real life. Some people are good in leadership, others in execution. While wikipedia is not democracy, there are still some analogies, and the proper solution is not to shoo people from what you call "bossing" other call "policing" and other namecalling, but to put these different skills to good use and under control against abuse. And if a cabal of 9 policymakers succeeded to push some rule, and some 3,000+ active editors did not resist, then kudos for these 9: it is quite probable they did something good or at least acceptable. Twri (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Endorse Jorge Stolfi's view of the problems with this RfC and WP in general. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert(talk) 13:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disappointed as well. Disappointed that the community has, yet again, showed just how resistant it is to even incremental change. Some of the people opposing this proposal are complaining that the proponents of it are bad for Wikipedia by trying to take power away from the 160,000 active users not involved in the discussion or "wearing down the community" by taking so long to come up with a compromise or daring to come up with a compromise that doesn't include every single viewpoint. For all the talk about viewpoints, they're insensitive to any viewpoint other than their own, and anyone who doesn't act in the way they believe is best is obviously acting in bad faith. When the first part of the RFC started, it really looked like the community was about to prove me wrong and come up with some major change spontaneously. Now it looks like at most, we'll get a BLP-PROD process for new BLPs (though there are efforts underway to create more places for that to be rejected as well), with no timeline for taking care of the backlog. Oh well, back to the status quo I guess. Mr.Z-man 17:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If imposing new rules onto wikipedia is your goal, as it obviously is, I sincerely hope you fail miserably. The freedom wikipedia offers to the world; to allow people to upload their knowledge is important. Its a relatively unique opportunity for more knowledge to be compiled into one, relatively easy place to search for it. But the people who have taken over administering this site are progressively ruining that wonderful opportunity even faster than the few vandals, the fanatics advocating a point of view or those who are deliberately trying to manipulate the information for personal gain. Those are the people we need to be watching out for. So I take this seriously, just like the information contained in articles in my watchlist. I am watching over the decay in people's ability to post useful information. So put my face on your resistance to imposing more rules and secret bureaucracies that decide what the world can know.Trackinfo (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to change Wikipedia for the better, but thanks for illustrating my point about viewpoints. I want people to be able to add useful information too, I also want to make sure that information is verifiable and isn't presented as truth if it isn't, especially when it has the potential to harm someone in real life if it isn't. Wikipedia is no longer a resource mainly for its own editors – it hasn't been in a long time – but in some areas (in particular, ensuring information is verifiable), we're still acting like it is and doing a disservice to our readers and the general public in the process. Mr.Z-man 01:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What these proposals (I'm trying not to make this a personal attack) do is institute a "conform or die" attitude against these articles. These articles might not have references attached, but they are overwhelmingly informative and ACCURATE. Maybe you haven't looked beyond the numbers. I've opened and read thousands of these articles, I have personally found and added sources to hundreds of them. NOT ONE I have tried to source has proven inaccurate. I have, deliberately, stayed away from subjects I am not knowledgeable in, but I have no reason to believe any of these articles are any less truthful--I just don't happen to know where to source a Lithuanian legal scholar, for example. I have barely seen anything that would seem libelous, though I would guess the BLP about a person, whose only claim to notoriety was his conviction for murder might be libelous if untrue. The point being, the number of contentious or libelous articles--the stuff we should be concerned about--are microscopic. Being unreferenced by itself is not a crime. An editor, not knowing what to do to reference an article, to remove a tag or even how to lay out a basic article, by itself, is not a crime. Rules to prevent good information from joining the database are much more dangerous. And policies that BLINDLY remove good information from the database out of fear or laziness are criminal. That is what is being proposed. That is why I am so firmly in opposition.Trackinfo (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the information is good, the creator should have no problem adding a source for it. I still maintain that we need to get away from the 2001–2003 mentality of "if you know it, just drop it in and we'll fix it eventually" mentality and realize that A) At the current rate, eventually may mean never and B) We are a top 10 website that millions of people come to for information; editors are important, but readers outnumber editors probably 100:1. OTRS gets ~7 complaints per day regarding BLPs (more than 2000 per year) and the majority of the complaints are valid. The issue is hardly "microscopic." Just a few days ago I had to oversight a revision from an article where it claimed a person was having an affair with a coworker. In the month that it was in the article, it was probably seen by ~200 people and may have been in Google results as well. While the actual size of the issue may be fairly small, the effects that it can have on the person are huge. People seem to look at it as "Well, there's only a few libelous articles, so we don't need to concern ourselves too much." There should be zero libelous articles; an encyclopedia should not harm people. The reasons we haven't been sued (successfully) yet seem to be mostly luck, quick responses by the OTRS volunteers, and the willingness of the foundation to give into demands rather than fight a costly legal battle. Referencing an article should not be hard for the person writing it. We're not asking people to give properly formatted inline references, just sources. Mr.Z-man 05:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"There should be zero libelous articles". What about libelous information in sourced BLPs? None of these proposals do anything to improve articles with one or more reliable sources. My "Ultimatum" note on the talk page illustrates this-- you can't seriously push the "all-or-nothing" argument, then decide to apply it only haphazardly. -M.Nelson (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC) PS I don't mean to advertise my talk comment here; it just seems conveniently relevant. -M.Nelson (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the logic of the proponents of this discussion (the ones who keep trying to tell us what to think), we might as well delete all of wikipedia for fear that something might be libelous. Someone with malicious intent could easily put in a fraudulent reference and let their attack slip under this radar. Meanwhile there are psychotics who would prefer to delete 40+K (down from 50+K) of articles just because they don't have a source and they are afraid of what those articles say. Heaven forbid they should try to READ the articles and identify the (few) problem articles. Whether it is paranoia or a thirst for ultimate power, its a crazy over-reaction. Deleting that much material would be a good way to piss off a large percentage of your editors . . . and put us well on the way to becoming a second tier ~>#2,000 website or maybe in a few years fall off alexa all together. Remember there are plenty of wannabes out there who would love to take this spot.Trackinfo (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Nelson: "None of these proposals do anything to improve articles with one or more reliable sources." - I didn't argue that it did. We need to start somewhere though. Are you disagreeing with the statement that we shouldn't have any libelous articles? Previously we were basically doing nothing at all. Reviewing 10% of BLPs for accuracy is far better than 0%, which is what we were doing before. This brings me back to my initial comment here about the community being opposed to even incremental change.
@Trackinfo: As I noted, we probably have 100x as many readers as editors. Most readers couldn't give a damn what happens "behind the scenes," they just want quality content. It is about neither paranoia nor power, but about protecting the subjects of our articles from harm, and providing a quality service to readers, something that we've been failing at for years because of our "quantity over quality" approach that stopped making sense about 1.5 million articles ago. Mr.Z-man 16:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this whole thing is a mess, one of the reason people have avoided even getting involved. — al-Shimoni (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support much of what has been written. And my two cents, for what they're worth:
I am among those who participated, briefly, in the original RFC. I have not participated here, nor do I honestly expect to, because it had already gone on far too long when I discovered that it was going on, and consequently I'd have had a lot of catching up to do. My reasons for not going further are, pretty much, the ones which have already been mentioned. Most importantly, I work; of late I've had to keep long hours. Beyond that, there are things in real life that I have to take care of. Also, I have to eat and sleep. And while none of these things preclude editing, in the abstract (indeed, I've had a rather good month, what with all the snow around), they don't tend to allow me the kind of time I'd need to really sit down and read this entire page all the way through. Nevertheless, I might do so, if I really thought, at this point, that my opinion would matter much at all. Forgive my cynicism, but I'm not sure that it will.
I've said my piece before - I think mass deletion of stubs, unreferenced or otherwise, is wrong, wrong, wrong. Much of the information contained in unreferenced BLPs is innocuous enough; rarely do I come across anything that's potentially libelous. (Once, in my four-plus years here, actually. I removed it at once.) Ought it to be sourced? Ideally, yes. But the alternative shouldn't have to be deletion. Better some information than none.
Support. Excellent summary. I only disagree on it being a mere power struggle. I see it more as a misguided moral crusade problem. But to all practical purposes, the effects are the same. --Cyclopiatalk 13:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cyclopedia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellently put. Also, what Ser Amantio di Nicolao said above. Robofish (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bullypedia?
I was quite surprised by the reactions to my "rant" above. Perhaps there *is* some hope left after all.
I found Ikip/Okip's much more extensive collection of "consensus" polls. I can see now why he is hated so much by the sausage-making crowd.
I have also been pointed to Sep/2009 article] Bullypedia, A Wikipedian Who’s Tired of Getting Beat Up. McKenna makes my rant smell like rosewater. However it seems that an actual experiment has basically confirmed its central claim — that a new well-meaning editor is almost certain to be bullied and driven away by the roaming wikivogons.
I also found another article by Shane Richmond technlogy editorialist for The Telegraph (UK), titled Wikipedia should delete the deletionists. Enough said.
At the end of 2005 Wikipedia had about 1,000,000 artcles and 16,000 regular editors, or about 60 articles for each regular editor (for a suitable definition of "regular editor"). Since 2001 the two numbers had been growing at the same rate, so the 60:1 ratio was maintained. However, since 2006 the articles have tripled, but the editor pool has shrunk to less than 10,000; so we now have 300 articles per regular editor, or five times what we had in 2005. If this trend continues, in a couple of years we will not have enough human resources to fight malicious edits, and Wikipedia will collapse.
Deletionism is not and never was a "consensus", not even a majority opinion. It is the stupid and destructuve ideology of a small minority, that prevailed by a combination of robot power and a broken "consensus" mechanism that, in any other context, would be called "ballot fraud". It is stupid, because its goal is to move Wikipedia backwards, towards obsolete standards of paper encyclopedias. It is destructive, because it has led to the loss of tens of thousands of good articles and good editors, and earned Wikipedia some very bad press — which, this time, was quite deserved.
In conclusion, Wikipedia will soon change, in spite of all shrugs and so-whats. If it does not change course now, radically and quickly, it will just die in a few years.
To save itself, Wikipedia must set as its top goal the recruiting and keeping of new bona-fide editors. That includes banning deletionism and any other unnecessary practice, rule or feature that may drive those editors away, no matter how dear it may be to its inventors and users. That includes, in particular,
scrap the notability rule,
delete and ban all editorial article-side tags, and
stop the paranoia about usourced BLPs.
The about-turn should also include
undelete all the articles that have ever been deleted for non-notability alone, and
email a contrite apology to all the editors who worked on them.
If these measures succeed in bringing back only a few hundred "lost" editors, they will be well worth the cost.
All the best (with a bit more hope) --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is about the most dangerous proposal I've seen yet. I would rather endorse the destructive act of deletion on site than bring down our maintenance system and notability guidelines. ThemFromSpace 18:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jorge, did you intend to post this on this page? pablohablo. 18:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Jorge, but you're going much too far this time. I agree that here have been too many deletions but this isn't an acceptable solution. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, read those external articles, check the statistics, look for case histores — and tell me who is being "destructive" here.
I have yet to see *one* concrete example of an unsourced or non-notable BLP that could bring concrete harm to Wikipedia. On the other had, the harm that deletionism has caused is enormous, well documented, and visible even to the external public. Please stop this paranoia before it destroys Wikipedia. ALl the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect most of the authors of those articles were personally mad at wikipedia for deleting something they liked. Instead of reading over our established guidelines to see our reasoning for deletion, they chose to write angry articles. Would they do the same to Britannica for leaving out a few articls? If not, then why Wikipedia? People think Wikipedia owes it to them to have an article on everything under the sun; they simply don't understand our established purpose and limits. We are an encyclopedia. If an article wouldn't appear in a normal encyclopedia people should be thankful it appears in Wikipedia, but they shouldn't be expecting it to. ThemFromSpace 19:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jorge, do you realize that if we do as you suggest, our article-to-editor ratio will also increase? Maurreen (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
La proporción *está* aumentando en este momento. Eliminar 300.000 artículos sin fuentes o que no son destacables podría reducir la proporción temporalmente de 300:1 a 270:1, pero eso es sólo el equivalente a unos pocos meses del crecimiento actual. La única manera de mejorar significativa y permanentemente la proporción es reclutar rápidamente a decenas de miles de nuevos editores.
Por ejemplo, supongamos que por algún milagro reclutamos 50.000 nuevos editores permanentes y luego, de alguna manera, "cerramos la puerta" nuevamente. Incluso si esos editores crearan un artículo nuevo cada mes, en promedio, la tasa de artículo por editor caería inmediatamente a 50:1, y dentro de 4 años todavía estaría por debajo de 100:1.
Además, sospecho que los editores de hoy están cada vez más ocupados con tareas administrativas "improductivas". Por lo tanto, conseguir editores *nuevos* que se preocupen por los contenidos —incluidos editores *expertos*— es quizás más importante que simplemente conseguir *más* editores. -- Jorge Stolfi ( discusión ) 21:13 28 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esas tareas de gestión son una función necesaria de la etapa en la que se encuentra este proyecto; obviamente, el período de mayor crecimiento es cuando se crean los primeros artículos. pablo hablo . 21:17, 28 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Jorge, me describo como un inclusivo, y simpatizo con tu punto de vista. También estoy totalmente de acuerdo contigo en la inutilidad del pánico moral sobre los BLP sin fuentes. Sin embargo, WP:GNG existe por una razón: es decir, garantizar que realmente podamos escribir algo confiable sobre un tema. Puedo estar de acuerdo en que se hagan algunas excepciones caso por caso (por ejemplo, en mi experiencia, el software de código abierto puede ser de uso generalizado y, por lo tanto, notable en el significado real de la palabra, incluso si ninguna revista oficial, etc., lo cubrió, y podemos usar con razonable precaución incluso fuentes menos oficiales en tales casos). Sin embargo, en general, si no hay fuentes confiables sobre un tema, ¿cómo se puede esperar que lo cubramos? La recuperación masiva de borrados y la inclusión de toneladas de material en el espacio de artículos no es la respuesta. Sin embargo, una buena idea podría ser hacer una lista de dichas eliminaciones, si aún no la hay, para que sea más fácil pedirle a un administrador que la modifique y reelabore. -- Cycl o pia talk 20:09 28 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Jorge has some salient points, and thanks for pointing us to the Telegraph blog. There are of course plenty of totally innocuous unreferenced articles. More to the point: What we need is more control over those deletionists whose sole purpose is to increase, at a rate of 500 a day, their edit count in the firm belief that it will gain them glory, barnstars, and adminship. These trigger happy deletionists who don't even read the articles before fondling their Twinkles are the 'things' that need deleting. (I seem to think I've said all this before somewhere...) --Kudpung (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Deletionism, I think, is the worst problem we have to worry about here, and I have noticed a tendency to bite the newbies that frustrates me. But I don't think scrapping the notability guideline is the answer. If we do, then we risk opening the floodgates to an overwhelming tide of, to put it bluntly, junk articles that will swamp everything else here. Check out the list of new pages sometime; I guarantee you that within the fifty newest pages you'll see at least two or three along the lines of "OMG [so and so] is SOOOOOOOOO awsom and kewl!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111", if not more. And we must have a mechanism for removing them. If we don't, this encyclopedia becomes worse than useless, because the amount of garbage will quickly overwhelm everything else. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Articles created for obviously malicious or humorous reasons, such as those that you mention, must be deleted on sight. Ditto for any large bunch of articles that appear to have been created automatically from some database or directory. These are cases where speedy deletion is legitimate and "consensual" in the true sense of the word. That is not the case, however, for deletion of articles wich were created "by hand" and whose only fault is the "non-notability" of the subject or their lack of references. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think if people educated themselves on what an encyclopedia is supposed to be, there would be far less whining about sourcing. Hope for saving this sinking ship is, however, lost. Lara 22:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I happen to own a paper copy of the Britannica, which I bought some 35 years ago and now occupies a substantial fraction of my modest bookshelf space at home. It was fairly useful at the time, and my kids enjoyed browsing through it; but I haven't opened it once in the last ten years.
Wikipedia may have started out with the aim of becoming a "free Britannica"; but now it is obvious that a volunteer, self-regulated task force could never reach that goal. However, it has gone off in a different direction, and went much further than that, becoming useful and popular beyond all expectations. We should recognize its strengths and build on them, rather than hurt it by chasing an obsolete goal that we cannot ever reach.
Wikipedia is not, will not be, and should not be an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a wikipedia, and it should only aim to be the best wikipedia that humanity can build.
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia exists for readers as well as editors. Even if we recruit a hundred thousand new editors, readers will still outnumber editors by at least 50:1. As a reader of Wikipedia articles, I would rather have a hundred thousand well-written, comprehensive articles than a million stubs. We have over 3.2 million articles but nearly half (1.4 million) are marked as stubs and over 670,000 have some sort of maintenance tag on them. Quantity over quality stopped being a good idea a long time ago. Mr.Z-man 23:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "content" edits have become much scarcer in the last several years. Most entries in my watchlist nowadays seem to be pointless "form" edits, often by robots. Part of that change can be explained by the fivefold increase in article:editor ratio, noted above. It may also be that old editors are speding an increasing fraction of their time on "form" rather than contents.
However, I do not see how we could increase the quality without increasing the editor pool; and I do not see how we can do that without scrapping the notability rule. We cannot force anyone to edit only those articles that *we* think are important. Thus, we will always have a hundred stubs or low-quality articles for each reasonably good and complete article; and the we cannot get more of the latter without also getting more of the former. If the price for recruiting one regular editor is to allow a hundred stubs on non-notable subjects, or a hundred entries in "trivia" lists, that is more than worth it. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for thinking of the large proportion of readers who aren't editors. I was wondering when someone would mention them! Fortunately we don't need to choose between thousands of good articles or millions of stubs, we can have both: a GA where possible and a stub where that's the best we've managed so far. Many GAs started as a stub, and deleting it probably wouldn't have helped. Certes (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To a certain extent, we do need to decide. More articles means more effort is expended simply maintaining and monitoring them, to prevent them from getting worse. Yes, the editor might stay for 5 years and watch it himself, but its more likely that he'll create it, get bored, and never log in again. Further, as we get more articles, the average "usefulness" (i.e. how many people actually care about the subject) of articles decreases as the subjects become less significant. In February at least 3% of articles got an average of 1 page view per day or less, and that includes hits from search engine spiders and mirrors. So if efforts to actually improve articles are spread somewhat evenly, we're spending more effort improving articles that fewer people care about. To use an example, Utah State Route 269 got fewer than 50 hits last month, but it is an GA. Gas constant on the other hand, got more than 120,000 hits, but is just barely longer than an average stub. I'm not necessarily saying that we shouldn't have articles on Utah state highways, but when we expand inclusion criteria, improvement efforts can be rather lopsided in comparison to the actual usefulness of the articles. Mr.Z-man 03:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything you've said there Mr Z-Man, which is saying something as we've generally supported opposite sides throughout this RfC. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually read the telegraph piece, he talks about the article on Steven Wells, which was nominated for deletion clearly in bad faith, and speedily kept after about 3 hours with no one else supporting deletion. This was no battle between deletionists and inclusionists, and is typical of the journalism that surrounds wikipedia. The example given actually shows wikipedia working reasonably well. No, the article shouldn't have been nominated in the first place, but having been nominated it was pretty quickly dealt with. Quantpole (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you insane? - We (at least the sane editors) would never allow such a policy to be put in place. Not only would it make the entire encyclopedia fall apart, it would cause ridiculous amounts of unmaintainable articles. This isn't "PleasePutWhateverYouWantIntoThisPlacepedia", just imagine (well I can see you can't imagine) what this place would look like if we had 35 different biographies on John Doe who lives on ferry lane and has a band... and he's 10. This very proposal makes me look at you with a wary eye, although it's not as if I wasn't already with the last one. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 10:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong endorse I am so disappointed too, and this destructive theocracy will eventually ruin Wikipedia, mostly by driving away content contributors. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support As a once-zealous Wiki-contributor who has slowed down drastically due to Deletionists (only a little of ~my~ content, but a LOT of others' content ---redlinked many articles I would have wanted to have read) I'm pleased to encounter Jorge Stolfi's section above and the other one further above. Cramyourspam (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)CramYourSpam[reply]
Jorge quotes Wikipedia:Newbie_treatment_at_CSD as an actual experiment that in his words "basically confirmed its central claim — that a new well-meaning editor is almost certain to be bullied and driven away by the roaming wikivogons." I started that experiment (now better known as wp:NEWT), and also participated by creating a new account and using it to contribute new articles. The results are still there for all to see, and I do not accept that they indicate that well meaning new editors are "almost certain to be bullied and drive away". Yes some of the articles we contributed were tagged for deletion and some of those were deleted, but most survived the process unscathed. I think that our experiment confirmed what some of us had long suspected, that there is a problem for new editors creating legitimate new articles, but one shouldn't exaggerate that problem, and I'm not convinced that the solution is to abandon the deletion process. Better in my view to discuss the issues that divide us, seek consensus as to what deletion process we should have and make our standards consistent and clear to new contributors. Currently if a new editor contributes an unsourced article on a subject that meets our notability criteria, its fate depends on who happens to patrol it and if that patroller tags it for deletion, the admin who sees that tag. I would prefer to move to a new article creation process which made it clear to contributors that if their subject is a living person then they need a source from their first save; I could live with a system that merely required people to supply sources for contentious information and any information that is challenged. I'm very unhappy with our current process as in my experience it sometimes results in good faith contributions being deleted by good faith deleters. I appreciate that some deletionists were deeply offended by NEWT, and that some inclusionists will be offended by the conclusions I draw from NEWT. However I would rather that we confront our differences and try to come up with a consistent workable policy than that we continue as we have been doing with the same policies being "interpreted" in sometimes contradictory ways. ϢereSpielChequers 13:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen a posting with which I agreed more than Jorge Stolfi's. In particular, the abuse of the "notability" rule has led to Wikipedia not being the "fun" it was when I first started editing in 2003. Let this comment be taken as a ringing endorsement of JS's ideas, and a concurrence with all his proposals, up to and including the extent of wishing to be considered as a co-sponsor. -- BRG (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as quite possibly the worst proposal seen in these parts yet. The editors why were "lost" because they couldn't get their Jam-in-Mom's-Basement-and-Hey-We-Have-a-Myspace-Presence band's article created are precisely the kind of people that should not be editing here. Good riddance, and move forward with better, notable, and sourced articles. Tarc (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support scrapping the subjective, arrogant, and elitist "notability" as an idiotic, anti-Enlightened, and morally reprehensible basis for inclusion. We just keep seeing article after article that actually does meet any common sense standard of notability labelled as non-notable by someone who is simply ignorant of or just does not like the topic or subject matter. Notability is nothing more than a lame excuse to try to force a vocal minority's subjective and usually uninformed opinions upon others. Verifiability is sufficient for our purposes. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You want to get rid of our notability guidelines because they are subjective and because they are morally reprehensible? Isn't that a rather subjective reason to get rid of those supposedly subjective rules? Anyway, random example, it is easily verifiable that bakery "Deniset Gilles" in the French town "Vaux-sous-Aubigny" exists.[3] Would you support the inclusion of an article on this bakery, and on the millions of other small, local shops and companies? Fram (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No to the former and yes to the latter. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support getting rid of most article-issues tagging. Either fix it yourself or move along. "Assigning work" to random other editors doesn't really work unless there's a clear resolve to address each tag and a team of people ready and willing to keep the backlog down. As far as getting rid of notability, no I don't think we can do that. It's a pretty low bar to pass these days. Gigs (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you believe it is better not to be aware of existing problems at all? We have way too many articles which are unsourced or very poorly sourced. When they are tagged, everyone can easily find them and source those they feel like working on (e.g. subjects they know anything about). And until they are improved, all readers are made aware of the problems. The tags serve as a warning that the article lacks some basic aspects, an invitation to readers to become editors, and a tracking tool for existing editors to find articles with known problems. What are the disadvantages that outweigh these advantages? Fram (talk) 08:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to Phase III
Discussion on the talk page has started about moving toward Phase III. My note here is just a notice; please hold any discussion on the talk page. Maurreen (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this was Phase III. Sigh. Okip 02:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was Phase Plaid. Tarc (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are we positive it's not Technicolor?--Magicus69 18:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm abandoning all interest in this RfC, and I guess that's what happened to the 400 contributors from Phase 1.--Kudpung (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're getting a haircut? Cool, who's paying? - Wikidemon (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hoy mismo, en mi lista de seguimiento, he recibido un anuncio/invitación para unirme a esta discusión. Me alegro de no haberme enterado antes, porque: Vaya, es un montón de tiempo y electricidad desperdiciados y frustrantes documentados aquí. Yo mismo acabo de perder una hora leyéndolo sólo en esta página. No quiero molestarme en hacer un seguimiento de los fragmentos faltantes archivados, la politiquería y las nuevas fases. Estoy de acuerdo con el usuario:Kudpung anterior y aún más con el usuario:Wikidemon, que acaba de mencionar. Cerremos este desastre, cortémonos el pelo y volvamos al trabajo. Además, por favor, eliminen este banner de la PARTE SUPERIOR DE MI LISTA DE SEGUIMIENTO. Duff ( discusión ) 03:21, 26 de febrero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Haz clic en [ descartar ] y eso debería solucionarlo. Killiondude ( discusión ) 08:17 26 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Este asunto no parece tener actualmente tanta importancia, y se han creado muchos puntos complicados y jerga sobre él. Estoy de acuerdo en que los errores cometidos en las biografías deben ser rectificados, pero eso no implica automáticamente la eliminación: si encuentras un fallo, ¿por qué no lo corriges tú mismo? Por supuesto, puedo ver algún tipo de guerra política surgiendo aquí y NO quiero involucrarme, excepto para decir que tal vez sea necesario un cambio menor. De todos modos, ¡me saco el sombrero ante la persona que controló todo esto! -- Aubs 400 ( discusión ) 15:38 26 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si esto está "controlado", ¿alguien podría indicarme dónde se encuentra una RFC no controlada? Intervine en la primera etapa de este proceso, pero ya no tengo interés en pasar unas horas más leyendo toda esta página para empezar a entender cómo intervenir de nuevo. VernoWhitney ( discusión ) 16:41 27 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Avanzar rápidamente hasta el final?-- Kudpung ( discusión ) 13:27 4 mar 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Comentario confuso
Vine aquí por el anuncio del banner y por mi interés en los problemas actuales con BLP. Al llegar, veo una avalancha de propuestas, contrapropuestas, discusiones en cadena, votaciones a favor o en contra, etc. No puedo empezar a comprender todo esto. ¿Puede alguien resumirlo en una versión de Cliff's Notes? Esto ayudaría a obtener una participación más amplia de aquellos que no han podido seguir las discusiones en tiempo real. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( discusión ) 01:31 27 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Intento rápido:
BLP has long stated that contentious material in a BLP requires strong sourcing.
Many BLPs, especially older ones, furnish no explicit references (many actually used "see also" as the equivalent, but bots do not understand that nuance).
Some editors feel that no material at all should be in a BLP without a specific reference (this is stronger than the extant rules) and proceeded to delete BLPs which were not officially referenced. This happened to include people like Prime Ministers.
Thus the current debate.discussion.
Positions with some backing (as best as I can list them) are:
(dividing BLPs into "extant" and "new" and handling "new" first here)
Delete on sight all new unreferenced BLPs
Create a "sticky PROD" (one which would not properly be removed unless full references for everything in the BLP are provided) for a 2 to 7 day period, following which a bot could delete the BLP
New Prod, but requiring a "human deletion" with the requirement that the human make some sort of efort to see if sources can be found before deletion.
Delete on sight all unsourced contentious material from new BLPs, and use the current AfD processes for deletion.
("old" BLPs retaining "unreferenced" tag)
Set up a schedule for BLPs by some sort of group, allowing bot removal after deadlines.
Set up a schedule, allowing for human removal after being examined to see if sources are easily found for the person
Set up a new Prod requiring (in parallel with the "new" sections) full references for BLPs etc.
New Prod with "human actions" and requirement that sources be sought prior to deletion
Use current AfD processes and BLP standards for deletion
Anyone who has a variant I omitted, please add hereto <g> Collect (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The proposals now being !voted on do not include deleting anything on sight. New unreferenced BLPs would be proposed for deletion, probably for a week. They would be deleted unless referenced. Maurreen (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to list all the positions which I saw presented. With that exception (instant delete), is the list correct? Collect (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current proposals being !voted on are more moderate about old unsourced BLPs. Under Balloonman's proposal, there is a schedule for these to be referenced. If those goals are not met, then the idea of deleting them would be revisited. Okip's proposal is more open; he is against deletion of these. Maurreen (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the summary above omitted the simplest solution: do nothing about unsourced BLPs. If anyhing has come out of this RfC, is the fact that unsourced BLP are not harmful. On the other hand, tagging them is harmful, prodding is harmful, deletion is harmful. So please stop this paranoia. Stop tagging, stop prodding, stop deleting, stop worrying, ever. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite correct. Of course they and every unsourced article is harmful to the concept of a reliable encyclopedia. The false nature of the problem is the mistaken idea that the unsourced BLPs are in some way exceptionally hazardous. We are trying to conduct a serious project--a project that now has worldwide influence and probably the key substantial information resource that everyone uses as a matter of course . There is a certain amount of pure junk and pure advertising that has gotten submitted and not removed. But the amount of this is more than we can cope with immediately, so instead of dealing with the way to cope with it, which is attracting more editors, people have focused on a particular part where they can highlight the possibility of harm of individuals from unsourced articles that nobody looks at, and pretend to be fixing it. The real BLP problems are the bias and error and sometimes defamation in the much larger number of sourced articles. This project could almost be mistaken for a deliberate attempt to avoid calling attention to what we know is wrong, but cannot fix, by diverting attention to what isn't much wrong, but we might be able to fix if we ignored the harmful consequences of ill-thought out fixes. DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And even this concedes too much. Unsourced articles do not affect our reliability; erroneous articles affect our reliabiklity. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 16:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does the Emperor have any clothes?
Has anyone provided any evidence, anywhere, that unsourced BLPs have significantly more errors than other articles?
Only a few people seem to have actually examined a sample; all of those I have seen have come back with the conclusion that most unsourced BLPs are accurate, and opposing proposals to automatically delete articles, whether on sight, or after a time lag.
The chief mechanism by which sources produce accuracy is that Editor A has provided sources, and Editor B has checked the sources (and with luck the article hasn't been vandalized since then), thus putting four eyes on the subject. This doesn't happen anywhere near often enough - it sometimes happens at FAC, but how many BLPs get anywhere near FA?
The current sourcing improvement drive offers something like that: an unsourced article will have its facts checked, in the process of being sourced. Ironically, the sticky PRODs and the rest of the bot-deletion proposals on this page would short-circuit exactly that process, thus destroying a real hope of getting articles which are - for a change - more accurate than average. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 19:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amen! -- BRG (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. If we summarily delete unreferenced BLPs (even if only new ones) where will this end? Delete all old uBLPs? Delete all unreferenced articles about companies, music groups/bands, and other groups of people where these are still actively trading/performing/etc. Delete articles on same even if the groups are long defunct/disbanded. Delete all unreferenced articles, full stop... I really don't like the look of that possible chain of events... --Jubilee♫clipman 00:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
for example, here is a a macarthur genius grant winner, UBLP getting Prod'ed [4] Pohick2 (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is going on here? We have not settled ANYTHING. No decisions have been announced but the BLP:PROD is already in effect? Articles are on a quick path to deletion when we are still debating the issue. When there is sizable opposition to doing exactly this step? This goes to show that the decision has already been made for us, and some people, specifically User:Abductive is inserting PRODs when we have not settled on using such a PROD.Trackinfo (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(not picking on this one individual), the concern i have is the group think that tags away without common sense. how much of the UBLP "problem" would go away, if the taggers would stop making silly "non-notable" claims. it's unclear that there is any buy-in from taggers to change their behavior; are these folks going to continue wasting my time regardless of the outcome here? in my sweep through the A's, i saw some non-notable, some easily referenced with a google, some that have links and not inline references: how are we to get them to tag the non-notable only? Pohick2 (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
for example: president of vassar geting Proded [5] Pohick2 (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty in improving the processes generally is that the harm from the submitted garbage is immediate and obvious, while the harm from rejecting usable material is much less obvious-- the discouragement of new editors who are needed to counter the inevitable attrition of the current people here. The situation leads itself to quack remedies. The principal class of such remedy is to to try to fix something that it looks like we can fix by simple drastic indiscriminate action , however unimportant, and however irrelevant they may be to the actual problems of the site. The BLP situation is just that. The rare serious problems attract attention, for the same reason that individual troubles attract tabloid readers--people identify with them, and ignore the much greater problems of the actual world. The current unsourced BLP issue is a tabloid approach to Wikipedia--sensationalism rather than sense. DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
here, here - and UBLP is a quick and dirty management by numbers and slogans, not quality leadership. the process improvement requires a change of attitude: the hard work of thinking before tagging, and editing before rejecting. -- increasing the scrap rate, (deletion rate) will not increase quality; rather, there must be continuous process improvement. new article creation quality must increase; new quality standards (inline references) must be implemented, as a part of the standards process.</Edwards Deming channel> i wish i could say that we have that leadership, but i'm afraid we will continue to suffer without it. Pohick2 (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better approach: Let users with 500 or 5000 edits can see deleted articles
I cannot read main points let alone all statements above. AFDs are taking way too much time and effort we all can spend on improving articles and references themselves. To keep it short
Do not delete unsourced BLPs, if you don't do anything to improve drawbacks, as you currently propose according to deletionist approach
Or better
Keep AFDs shorter, simpler and time independent, and if the article is unsourced or not well written enough, List deleted articles in a page, And let users with a certain amount of edits, e.g. 500-5000 or elected members of Deleted Article Rescue Squadron who have high contributions, can see, improve and rescue deleted articles after a review process if they feel like. And after they improve the content, there may be a review about whether improvements are sufficient or not before article to be re-published, by admins or users, especially the article editors and AFD voters.
Updated proposal over process dated March 01, 2010:
List, tag and sort deleted pages per category, date, alphabetically etc.
Create a task for to revive deleted content per reference and content improve. A similar task force before AFDs are already exist named Article Rescue Squadron. So either:
Let users with 500-5000 edits and/or contributions and/or articles created access deleted page data
Let members of Deleted Article Rescue Squadron access data. Who elected among users with 500-5000 edits by users and/or admins and/or related wiki project members.
Create a new RFR (Request for Revival) and UR (Undeletion Review) process after the articles are improved by TaskForce or editors, to cut AFDs shorter. AFDs are currently consuming so much time users may use over improving articles and references, and put a huge stress over contributors of the articles, even discourages new editors so much that they stop contributing to the wikipedia. And that is mainly because after an article is deleted, reviving it back is even much more time consuming and requires debates which result blood feuds.
Currently only admins can see deleted articles, and since it is that way we have really harsh and unproductive AFDs, especially when people desperately try to save articles that can be improved. Kasaalan (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: numbers are hypotethical they may change according to user input. Kasaalan (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Debate 1: Access right to deleted pages for users with 5000 edits
Support as nominator. Kasaalan (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then they made a serious mistake. It may be re-proposed. Wikipedia tries to do it things in the hard and time consuming way. We are losing so much content, and time during AFDs that once deleted, the access to the data and ability to improve to sufficient standards are impractical for regular users, and interestingly since non-participants aren't aware of every AFD which lasts 15 days, most of us cannot vote or improve articles afterwards even if we care. Let alone the regular AFD, now people try to claim we should massacre 10.000s of articles. Very productive. Why don't we just hide, and skip long-tiring debates, then just unhide the article when some users who care improves them. My proposal is not about extremely weak or copyright violation articles, but many articles who just lacks some improvements or a few references. Creating a page from scratch is really time consuming. Also hide processes will prevent restarting and reAFD processes. Kasaalan (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The legal counsel opinion mentioned above applies to libellous statements contained in any kind of article. As far as I can tell, it says (quite logically) that such material shall be permanently removed, not ony from the articles, but also from their histories and anywhere else they coud be seen by the "public". The equation "libellous material" = "unsourced BLPs" was shown to be completely false, but unfortunately facts do not seem to be welcome here. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a thought experiment it's an interesting proposal. However, as far as I know it would require some technical changes to the software, and some procedures, that are probably not worth the trouble. We can't really use community consensus to compel the Foundation to expend development resources. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The changes are already in the code, they were just never "turned on".--Father Goose (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, interesting. I would make this privilege something that can be granted to trusted users, like rollback. But also, I think this is a separate question from whether to flag and delete the back catalog of unsourced BLP articles on a schedule. It just takes a little of the pressure off. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Debating and voting community wide issues with a few dozen people is wrong in the first place. Attack or copyright-violation parts in articles aside, no there may not be any harm with keeping unreferenced pages in hidden state, until some editors will reference and revive them. Mike Godwin is utterly wrong in his own imaginative statement. Kasaalan (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely never this has been explicitly vetoed by Wikipedia's Legal Counsel, and thus would not happen even in the extremely unlikely event it gained community consensus. Which it wouldn't. You're free to state your disagreement, but you're not the one paying Wikipedia's legal bills. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Starblind, link please. Okip 03:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right [[6]]. (For reference, this was in the first comment). While Jorge notes that Mike Godwin's comments only apply to libelous comments, I'd be interest to see how he intends to separate those comments out. (Given that this would require the review of all deleted content ever before it could be made readable. (Further, why is this even in the BLP RfC? This isn't really a BLP issue in any sense) -- Bfigura(talk) 18:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. It's a famous perennial proposal. I personally agree with such proposals -I can't see why letting autoconfirmed users seeing deleted articles is a big deal -after all, Deletionpedia allowed that to everyone for a specific time frame, and I haven't seen the sky falling. However I am not the Foundation's lawyer, so we can't but comply. --Cyclopiatalk 20:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I like the idea, but some ideas, no matter how good, will never happen here. Okip 03:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Godwin's comments on the subject failed to take into account any scheme by which libel and copyvios would be marked as "restricted" by the deleting admin, and only be viewable by other admins. It's not a no-go, from a legal point of view; it would have to be implemented in a way that addresses the legal issues. I happen to think it would require trivial changes to the implementation to do so.--Father Goose (talk) 06:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree that once we've changed the systems to allow anyone to look at deleted edits unless they've been marked as restricted, for new deletions it would be relatively easy but very time consuming for the deleting admins to mark some edits as restricted due to libel and others as merely deleted. But going through millions of already deleted articles to sort their edits into restricted due to libel and otherwise would be an enormous task; As we don't have as many active admins as we had a couple of years ago, I would suggest not implementing a change like this that would require lots of extra admins until we manage to reverse the decline of active admins and get the numbers back to at least a hundred above the last peak. Also after implementing it I suggest that all articles already deleted default to restricted until an admin has looked at them and unrestricted whatever doesn't have legal problems - logically you'd need a page for requests to unrestrict articles and a system of marking the millions of already deleted articles as patrolled by the admin who reviews to see what can be unrestricted. In the history of Wikipedia there have been nearly two thousand admins who between us have performed nearly 8 million admin actions, over 6 million of which have been deletions. Reviewing over 6 million deleted pages and deciding which edits can be unrestricted would be a large amount of work, and even if we could recruit thousands of admins to do it, and motivate them to do this rather than improve wikipedia, I can think of several better uses for that resource. Better by far to fix RFA and appoint all longterm, civil, clueful editors as admins so that those trustworthy editors who need to look at deleted edits can do so. ϢereSpielChequers 09:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed all previously deleted articles would have to be marked as restricted by default, and only unrestricted after review. However, that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a good idea to make deletions viewable by regular editors going forward. And one way of making the "review" task more useful would be to create lists according to date (more recently deleted articles are likelier to be relevant than very old ones) and deletion process (prods/AfDs/speedies, with speedies probably being the least important to review). Not that there's much use in discussing the implementation of deletion-viewing in this RfC either way.--Father Goose (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if there are those who want to go ahead with this it might make sense to spin this section off into a separate RFC. If so I would have thought that reason for deletion would be a better thing to prioritise for review. {{A7}} because many actors and athletes may have become notable since they were deleted and {{A3}} because it is the most likely spedy deletion criteria to be incorrectly used. ϢereSpielChequers 09:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Come on. For a trial period, we may give that privileges to editors with 1.000, 2.000, 5.000 or even 10.000 edits, and we may use that policy for future AFDs only to prevent misuse if that is all the concern. And for the previous articles we may create a task force, and elect its members who are willing to rescue those articles. Also as other editors said, with a second read Mike's advise is about copy violation and attack pages, unreferenced pages are different and they will be kept hidden to rest of the world and will be accessed by a few hundred or thousand users anyway, admins are the same for a similar perspective. And for proving they are copy paste or plagiarismadmin have to find original link to the text anyway, so deleting that part is not harder than just an edit. Marking a deleted article with a preset, tag or button is not time consuming more than 10 seconds. Admins should have read all deletion discussions anyway, although time to time I am not sure all admins follow that policy, so 10 more seconds is nothing. Also it is coders job to develop more tools, they earn monthly salaries for it. Kasaalan (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jaw Drop - Hold on one second while I get a bot to make vandal revisions... Done... wooohoo! I can now see deleted articles. - Another foolhardy proposal which fails to recognize all if the issues that would amount if this actually came into action. Not only would I not ever trust everyone with 500 edits to see deleted information, a lot of deleted information is things that only people who have been voted in by the community should even be able to see. (Remember it is also considered the Poor man's oversight) Only a damn idiot would think that this would be acceptable. Oh of course... Okip and Cyclopia have added their support for this. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 10:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, you've been banned before you got to the cutoff for being a vandalism-only account. Offer a realistic argument, please.--Father Goose (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is vandalism reverting... vandalism? Your attempt to invalidate my argument with an invalid argument has failed; please try again. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 12:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You said "vandalism revisions", not reversions, which I took to mean "vandalism edits". But even if you made 500 legitimate edits, you'd only be able to see stuff that was neither a BLP or copyvio, given that "tiered deletions" is the only way it could be legally implemented. In other words, after making 500 edits, you'd be able to see even less harmful information than you can already see as an IP just by looking through deleted revisions of existing articles, where tons of vandalism, copyvios, and personal attacks lurk.--Father Goose (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You trust even IPs to edit every part of the encyclopedia, yet you do not trust editors with 5000 edits to access deleted non-attack content so that if they can reference and improve they can revive the articles. If they cannot Wikipedia will not publish their articles anyway, their proposals might be reviewed before re-publish.Kasaalan (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also wikipedia should separate edit count with contribution count as I propose. Most of editor with high number edits are actually doing extensive anti-SPAM work, simple or unproductive reverts, administrative duties, or talk page chat, content removal etc. Moreover as I said, we may create a task force and elect its members who are willing to revive and will have access to deleted content.Kasaalan (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the quantity of edits that count it's the quality; and it's not the amount of work you do, or the type, it's the fact that you do it at all. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 12:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quantity of progressive contribution count is a better indicator than quantity of edit count. If you upload an image that is 1 contribution. If you revert a spam, it is a simple and useful edit but no actual contribution. Kasaalan (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Takes a lot of pressure off our shoulders. It is much easier to provide references for an existing article than to write a new referenced article. However, all unreferenced articles should be deleted eventually if no references are provided. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. --Eleassarmy talk 11:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We may replace the process with RFU (Review for Undeletion) so that if the article is improved enough a certain amount of user votes or an admin decision after RFU debate might revive content. AFD debates are sure unproductive, and most of the time we debate over whether to keep or delete an established content for lack of or quality of verifiable references, even if we know the content of the article is true or claimed to be true. Kasaalan (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Regarding ...users with a certain amount of edits, e.g. 500-5000 or elected members of Deleted Article Rescue Squadron who have high contributions, can see, improve and rescue deleted articles after a review process.Well, I've said beforen but I can't remember where: I think this is potentially dangerous because all it would do would give more licence to the drive-past taggers who have no other interest than to increase their edit counts. Some of these self-appointed Wikipedia policemen have edit counts in the tens of thousands from doing 500 tags an hour, which proves that they are not in the slightest bit interested in even reading the article or its history (I can cite examples). Maturity & responsibility would be much better criteria, than allowing more fuel to the adolescents here who treat the whole encyclopedia as a forum and a race to see who can use Twinkle, Hotcat, and friendly fastest. (I can cite examples). --Kudpung (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is you cannot separate everyone, unless you develop a contribution count process which should replace edit count process. On the other hand taggers, anti-spammers and reverters have no intention on article rescuing anyway, so they cannot misuse the privileged. Also as I propose there might be a certain task force for the job, whose members are notable contributors. Kasaalan (talk) 10:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Debate 2: Access right to deleted pages for users with 5000 edits
Four points,
A group of admins who undelete articles already exists, User:Ikip/AfD I created a list on the category talk page of who was most responsive to undeletion requests and this was heavily criticized so I deleted it.
"Disagreeable and closed to new ideas - that's the picture that emerges of contributors to...Wikipedia from a survey of their psychological attributes." Aldhous, Peter (January 03, 2009). "Psychologist finds Wikipedians grumpy and closed-minded". NewScientist. Retrieved 2009-05-08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Source: "Personality Characteristics of Wikipedia Members" CyberPsychology & Behavior (DOI: 10.1089/cpb.2007.0225) Which lead journalists to say some pretty negative things about wikipedia governance.[7]
I know Wikipedia:Requests for undeletionWP:REFUND etc, but RFR (Request for Revival) in a taskforce talk, so that after they improve article taking a Undeletion Review by admins or users, are 2 completely different approach. Either you will
Harshly debate-cause huge stress and longstanding blood feuds among arguing sides, then delete the article and discourage contributors by AFDs, then make it complicated to access data for a second try by bureaucracy via admins who are already too busy and tired by RFU
Just hide data, unless it is legally troublesome/attack page, until an editor/taskforce improves references/content to the required quality, then Unhide article if it is approved by Undeletion Review.
I know google cache or mirror sites are available, but that is not known to many users as you may also know
You are right about there are manual, time consuming, unpredictable and long-tiring processes for accessing deleted data via particular admins via unnecessary bureaucracy if they accept your requests, which I already know unlike many new or regular users. Yet how do you expect some user to request deleted content from an admin, if he doesn't know whether the article is worth saving or not, when he cannot read the content previously, let alone he is aware of such processes. If the deleted pages count 10.000s we need at least 100s or 1000s of people, which can be accomplished either via edit count restriction or a Task Force Squad.Manually doing things via unnecessary bureaucracy just reminds me Third world country governmental and law processes. Kasaalan (talk) 13:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Letting editors see deleted content has been raised countless times over the years. Policy only changes because editors are stubborn and don't give up. For one of the more extreme examples, see WP:FICT which has been rejected by the community numerous times since 2003, but is still a "proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process" because a handful of stubborn editors want these rules bad enough. Unless you folks are willing to push for change, stubbornly refusing to give up, these comments for change will be quickly forgotten after this RFC is closed. But before you attempt to change things, it is important to realize that Mr. Wale's company culture, developed over eight years, is opposed to allowing non-admins see deleted comments. As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote: No man can struggle with advantage against the spirit of his age and country, and however powerful a man may be, it is hard for him to make his contemporaries share feelings and ideas which run counter to the general run of their hopes and desires.Okip 13:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are wasting effort via unnecessary AFDs. Most of the time the issue is not attack or any serious violation, but just a page that needs paraphrasing, copy editing of reference addition. Sandbox is not practical and efficient, especially to new and independent editors who doesn't know the community well or have connections. Since the way of wiki is collaboration, not acting like Rambo.
It depends point of view. Maybe the issue is with status quo. If similar concerns are raised over the years by many independent parties continuously, and if status quo defenders always points previous debates as a proof of their legitimacy, there is something wrong with the process. Kasaalan (talk) 13:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The context in which we discuss all this is very different from a few years ago. There have been millions of deletions take place, and as a result there is now a significant chance that if you want to create an article on someone you will see that an article of that name has previously been deleted. Also adminship has become a very big deal to many of the !voters at RFA and therefore is, or is perceived to be, out of reach to many of the editors who would find it useful. I have had two undeletion requests for articles I have deleted, one was for a different person of the same name and the other was to create an article for someone of the same name as the subject of an attack page. I think there is a certain chill effect on people wanting to create a page for an article that has previously been deleted, and I'm not sure what the best way is to combat that. But I fear that we have lost some potential articles because an article for a different and unnotable person of the same name has already been deleted, and therefore the editor assumes that an article on the notable person of that name would be unwelcome. I think that fixing RFA would be very difficult, persuading more people to undergo RFA is much more practical, as is persuading more users to talk to an admin if they are thinking of writing an article where an article of that same name has previously been deleted. I for one promise to be civil to any editor querying one of my past deletions. ϢereSpielChequers 15:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is a regular one the debates are generally limited to Notability and References etc. between deletionists and inclusionists. Yet if the person or article is related to a political or any other controversial issue, it gets nastier and nastier. Most of the time, even for non-controversial articles, especially new and area focused users who create/contributes the article are discouraged and dragged into AFD so much that they lose spirit and even feel like leaving the project. They can't even improve the article much during AFDs because of the time stress for the end of AFD, thinking if the page will be deleted why bother. We have to shift the balance of effort over AFDs to article improvements to rescue articles with issues. We debate and debate. So I propose a better system as I propose in de-adminship discussions:
Make a Wiki Vote page where all eligible users can easily vote time-independently by reading the briefs of all proposals, instead discussing wiki-wide procedures in old long-lasting debate fashion with few hundred people, which will result the policies to be more dynamic.
AFDs are the same, instead debating with a few watchlist editors then closing the case which leads deleting, just hide the content so that some eligible editors can revive the article later when they find time, and create a ReReview for Article from community. Kasaalan (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Debate 3: Access right to deleted pages for users with 5000 edits
So, if this is implemented, which of the 0 oversighters are going to go through all of the 30,000,000 or so deleted edits to remove the ones that contain copyright violations or libel? Mr.Z-man 17:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
a) It would be admins, not oversighters who would be reviewing deleted articles (not individual edits); b) I'd be happy to be one of the admins who reviewed previously deleted articles; c) even if we only implemented view-deleted on articles deleted from this day forward, it'd be an improvement over the current situation, which is permanent blackout for all but admins. Arbcom itself suggested that there was potential value in letting regular editors read and review deleted content -- it deserves a thoughtful evaluation, not a reflexive rejection.--Father Goose (talk) 04:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Totally support. We may solve issues progressively. Also sorting 30.000.000 articles by their length and categories would be a good start from an amount of data approach. Kasaalan (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way to say "only articles deleted after a certain point can be viewed" - its all or nothing. Even if it was possible, it would still greatly increase the workload on the oversighters. And even if we required every active admin to do this, that's still a 3000:1 revision:person ratio. But personally, I would resign the tools before wasting hours of my time doing that. I have much better things to do than sift through crap so a handful of people can indulge their curiosity without having to go through the incredibly laborious task of asking an admin to email them a copy or userfy it. The whole purpose of deletion is that we use it for content we don't want people to see. The only reason it isn't permanent is so that we can undo mistakes. Mr.Z-man 21:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, per Mr-Zman and the others who point out that this is perennially rejected for a reason. Also, why is this in the BLP RfC? -- Bfigura(talk) 18:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether Kasslan's idea is workable, the proposal emphasizes a greater point (which the well-stated points of Jorge Stolfi and Septentrionalis also evidence). Which is that the above proposal "Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy" is the only point approaching consensus in this RFC.--Milowent (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you figure? Part I (supporting a sticky-prod) has both the highest number of support votes as well as the greatest support percent (last I checked, it was over 80%). Granted, this isn't a vote necessarily, but I don't see how you can claim that the "nothing needed" is the dominant opinion when it has a lower number of total votes as well as a lower support percentage by quite a large margin. -- Bfigura(talk) 20:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will confess that like 99% of wikipedia editors, I do not have total understanding (or even close to it) of the various permutations of this discussion. So its a good thing its not a vote, because I guess it depends where and when we count from, and who could pick a winner? We already have a prod system, whether its tweaked or not. But the new voices who survey the landscape and comment, like the three I mentioned, should be considered carefully.--Milowent (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Milowent, this is the crux of the problem. Every time someone objects to some sweeping approach to biographical articles on living people, the same group of people respond with, in effect, "if you knew what we knew, you wouldn't object to what we want to do." But the rest of us don't know what the extent of the problem is, nor why current policies don't work. (And saying that "we've waited X months for this problem to be fixed" is a red herring: some of us have been waiting for a reasonable solution to be proposed, & the fact that stable versions was promised as the definite solution, submitted to the community for approval, failed to gain approval narrowly, then was dropped & forgotten -- all this only shows that a certain group doesn't want to explain the problem. They apparently just want a club to smite the great unwashed masses with.) An honest explanation of how large the problem is, why all existing approaches fail, & why deleting unsourced biographical articles of living people will solve this problem could convince those of us who don't agree. In other words, reaching out to the rest of us who don't have the time or interest to follow the often trivial internal debates of Wikipedia to gain our support. Any other approach will definitely make the rest of us more cynical about this project, make it harder for us to extend good faith to others, & in some cases be the final insult that will drive us away. (Unless the PTB believe Wikipedia has enough contributors.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um..... I don't know who told you flagged revisions was dropped and forgotten. In fact many of us are still anxiously waiting flagged revisions. However there's not much we can do, since the foundation is still working on it. Even the small number of people with coding experience probably couldn't help, since the foundation have said the problem isn't that they don't have enough people coding, and they would have put more (paid) people if they thought it would help but they didn't because it wouldn't. If you are interested, I suggest you keep abreast of things [8]. There's also the lab for you to try [9]. Also I don't know who told you flagged revisions was some magic solution to any and all BLP problems. (Was it the same person who told you flagged revisions was forgotten about? If so you really should stop listening to this person and perhaps ask them to be more careful in the future about spreading misinformation...) Definitely, while many BLP/N regulars and others worried about BLPs consider that flagged revisions would likely help, it's no magic solution simply part of the puzzle. Flagged revisions for example will do nothing about any existing libel (and I mean real libel). It's not going to make attack articles disappear. It's not going to somehow add references to unreferenced articles. As I've said, I don't know many of those concerned about BLPs ever said it would. For whoever did tell you that, I suggest you take it up with them. Nil Einne (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Let us not ignore that to authorise those with sufficiently high edits counts would expressly include the hundreds of trigger happy happy editors and self appointed Wikpedia policemen who hardly ever read what they are tagging because their sole mission is to gain some kind of glory based on that edit count. Basing it on an edit count would be fine, if it were supported by some other criteria that demonstarte maturity and responsibility. However, even the RfA system fails miserably on this, and has been known to commit some monumental blunders in according sysop status.--Kudpung (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as established editors, who are here to edit, but do not want/need to block/unblock/protect/unprotect, absolutely should be able to see deleted contributions, especially their own. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what exactly you guys missed. The Foundation Legal Counsel has rejected this. Even if all 11 million English Wikipedia editors signed a petition saying "we want view-delete as a user group", the developers would not be allowed to turn it on. I'm in favor of some sort of middling usergroup between admin and autoconfirmed (or I was at one time; I really haven't reexamined my views), but until you can convince Mike Godwin to change his mind, we can't do anything about this. NW(Talk) 05:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know that 11 million members elects the counsel right. Kasaalan (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where you are getting that from. The Board of Trustees, which has a minority of members elected directly from the community, as well as Erik Möller and Sue Gardner (likely), are responsible for hiring the staff of the WMF. There is a reason the community doesn't deal with the legal issues. NW(Talk) 11:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has to be cautious about legal cases. Though that does not mean you cannot trust a few thousand top contributoring/content creating editors to access non-referenced articles for reference improve, so if it is accepted by a Article Review for unhiding them. The main issue with deletions are we don't even know what it deleted for the 99.9 percent of cases we don't know and don't have access. Kasaalan (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This appears impractical to apply to already-deleted articles as it would take a lot of work to identify which of them are appropriate for it. However, it does seem possible that it could be applied starting from now and the decision made by the deleting admin. In one way this wouldn't achieve as much, but it could be done, which gives it an advantage. Any thoughts? Alzarian16 (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't possible, at least not without significant changes to the software. Mr.Z-man 21:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That makes this whole discussion rather pointless then. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is arguable if it will need a lot of coding. On the other hand even if it requires, coders job is to code, they earn money that way. Kasaalan (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a few people code a hard task, it will save millions of users from wasting countless hours. Kasaalan (talk) 10:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't arguable. I know that it will need a lot of coding. What's arguable is whether it would even be feasible and whether the foundation would actually allow it. How many paid coders do you think Wikimedia actually has? Most of the software is done by volunteers. Mr.Z-man 00:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its really all about deleting articles
To delete or not delete, that is the real question. Whether it nobler to make the mind suffer the outrageous misfortunate of the slings and arrows against our knowledge. Or is it better to take arms against those who will remove it?
It gets down to this: Do we want wikipedia content to be limited? Do we want articles chosen by a popularity contest? Or do we wish to collect and dispense the cumulative knowledge of the world? We have a certain faction that wishes to control and limit what the world can know. It is a form of censorship, no matter what semantic you choose to place upon it. The great universities of the world did not become great by telling their students what to learn. Great researchers do not make discoveries by sticking with the most popular ideas. Their knowledge and progress happen because the information they dispense is challenged. Opposing viewpoints are considered.
Knowledge is an accumulation of information and as I have described it previously, its all parts of a jigsaw puzzle. How that puzzle works on wikipedia is a collection of links. Do we want to have more red links to go to what we don't know? Or do we want blue links to display what we do know? We can't possibly know everything. Our database is weak where editors have not filled in the blanks. Stub articles exist because nobody has bothered to add to them. Does that make the articles unimportant, not necessarily. They just suffered from nobody taking the time. Do you expect it to improve when there is no place for that information to go; when there is hostile resistance that threatens to remove any attempt to fill in those deleted blanks. Try re-creating an article that has been deleted, you'll get a SPEEDY deletion within minutes. Try to develop it, its already gone. Get help from others, possibly with a different point of view, that has been rendered impossible. It is a very effective system to quash information.
In order to achieve the notability standard, articles become limited, focused on the claim of notability, frequently ignoring a career of work that led to the notable achievement. OK, we do occasionally have a case where somebody will spend 40 years selling insurance, then suddenly become a hero, but most of the stub subjects have much more depth to their lives. This concept of notability encourages shallow articles. It discourages articles about "borderline" significant players.
What is right? Does any person claim to know that answer? Do you think you can make the right decision about what is proper for deletion? You're that good? Seriously, nobody is that good. We need to present information, as broadly and specifically as we can. Give our millions of readers the opportunity to find their own impression of the truth, rather than limit it to what a relative handful of administrators decides is the truth. Every little piece of information you destroy hurts wikipedia far more than the few pieces of mis-information we present here. Yes, we would all like to it to be perfect. Its an admirable goal. Will it happen, of course not. Will we get closer to it by depending on the opinions of a handful of administrators, or thousands of editors? Will we get more serious editors by deleting their articles--every one of which they certainly put thought and effort into--or will we progressively piss each one of them off and watch their efforts to keep improving our knowledge disappear along with their articles?
So admit it, the real issue here is not sourcing, or BLPs, or liability, or contentiousness. Its: Do you want to delete articles? That is why this discussion has degenerated into a discussion about reviving deleted articles. Oh, this only the sub-standard articles, the ones nobody reads. Who sets the standard? As was linked to the above concept of "stable articles," "stub" and "expansion" are normal, logical progressions of an article's life. Killing them in infancy, killing even a seemingly useless stub mention of one character (an incomplete BLP) in a collection of connected individuals squashes the opportunity for an editor to discover and take interest in the article or series of articles in that subject.
This (supposed) debate has been offered and conducted by a group that wishes to find new methods and new excuses to delete more information. In the time we have been debating these proposals, had the vocal deletionists spent a small percentage of the time I have spent reading these articles in question, all of them would already be reviewed. The few that might be controversial or libelous, would already be identified. Of course, that would represent an effort to save material. Instead, I'm finding they are chasing my path and probably other people who are trying to save articles, deleting our work to make sure the articles remain in the list of unreferenced BLPs. They want to beat down resistance. We already know "That number isn't going down, so we have to delete articles" will be their cry. These (multiple expletives deleted)s will do anything deceitful to give themselves another tool they can abuse to control what the world knows. Control is the key word that keeps coming up. That is what they want. That is their psychosis as well outlined in "=Thoroughly disappointed=". I am imagining them on their deathbed as they give their list of lifetime accomplishments . . . "I joined in to the most powerful tool to spread knowledge around the world, and I squashed it."Trackinfo (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for venting, again. More is always better so please continue! Active Banana (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
on the contrary, I do no tdisdain any contribution--and I think it's a misunderstanding that deserves a response:
I do not think it's about "Do we want wikipedia content to be limited?". At most, it's about what way we want Wikipedia content to be limited, and where we are going to draw the bar with bio articles. Without WP:N in some form, we'd have no real advantages over the web as a whole, and the question of whether academics could trust us would never arise--indeed, the question of whether ayoone could trust us at all would never arise. Nor would most of us writing serious content be found here--a policy of this sort would certainly drive me straight to Citizendium. Moreover, it's not addressed to the problem--even if we had no WP:N, WP:V is a basic principle, I think almost everyone here does agree on at least that. The question is , how stringent should the equirement for WP:V and WP:N be? -- which are separate questions. Regardless of the level of WP:N wedecide on--and it is entirely up to us to decide on it for different types of aticles, how good must the evidence be for it?
Now it is true that a stringent requirement for WP:V and a limit on what we count ar WP:RS for BLP will have the effect of removing some of the articles we would have at whatever level of Notability we choose. Possibly, some of the people who would like a higher bar for notability and cannot get consensus for it, would like to approach the problem that way. I think they're wrong to do so--it will cut off the middle-level as well as the borderline notable articles, especially in subjects fields and countries where the systematic bias of available sources limits us. But I do not think this affects most ofthepeople here arguing for restrictions. Personally, I think it's a disgrace that we still have unsourced BLPs, though whether they are borderline in terms of notability is something I consider less important. Nobody could write a bio without some source at their disposal, unless they're going by family oral tradition. Many of the unsourced BLPs are perfectly easy to source. We should have caught these at the beginning. We're finally doing something about it now. The problem is to do it in such a way that we do have the opportunity to source them, at leastto the point of WP:V. Thisis actually one of the easier problems to fix: now we need to see about ch3ecking, updating and revising , all of our articles on a rregular basis. I'm not sure this was the best place to start, but it's not a bad one. It gets usstarted with what really is the easiest end of the problem. I don't think it's the most critical, but it is the easiest. There is only one way of doing it that would be worse than the present situation of havin gthem without tryingto source--and that is removing them without trying to source. It's that last clause which is the dispute. DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have on many occasions gone through fights with other editors over whether something is notable. Generally it has been a case that the other person does not know a thing about the subject, so assumes non-notable. Jorge and Trackinfo have it right. Notability is in the eyes of the beholder; if anyone is interested in looking up information about someone/something, that person/thing is notable enough. I have seen some articles that I thought were stupid to include, yet I would never propose deletion on notability grounds, because I think that obviously, someone thought the subject important to include. I just got over a fight with an editor over an article I had created five years ago, which at this point was flagged as unreferenced and "sub-notable." Suddenly, I had to devote a lot of effort to this 5-year-old article (spread over 2 days) to put in references (back in 2005, there was no such thing as a <ref> tag!) and enough additional material to establish notability. All my other Wikipedia editing had to stop while I devoted time, which could have been more productively utilized, to save this 5-year-old article. And if this other editor had simply done a rather easy Google search, she could have gotten this information. Really, anyone who puts an "unreferenced" tag on something without trying to do their own search for a source is, to my mind, no better than a vandal. -- BRG (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you completely. And in a way, I can relate to this. About mid-November last year, I started an article about the ghost town Silver Reef. And for the first month or two of its life, everything was going perfectly well. Until, that is, I tried upgrading it to a B-Class article. That's when an editor stepped in and changed it back to a C-Class article. They claimed that Silver Reef wasn't well-referenced, and they also claimed that two of the references were from "unreliable sources." This editor also claims that they have many reliable references to add to Silver Reef. They've been claiming this almost since the very beginning of the article. I keep asking myself, "When are they going to put these references in? Why do they keep putting it off?" The thought that they were lying finally came to me. The Utahraptor (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
what we have is failure to communicate. we have people who seek to direct volunteers to edit articles that have been tagged by bot. they would rather argue and game the wiki rules than improve articles. they want to be in charge, but not be responsible. they want to find ways to Prod and Speedy because they are too lazy to go to RfD. " Many of the unsourced BLPs are perfectly easy to source. We should have caught these at the beginning. We're finally doing something about it now." Agreed, but the dysfunctional process of threatening deletion to force others to improve articles worsens the project: editors are driven away by the biting behavior. I for one don't appreciate being led by the nose: therefore, i will do my 500, and return to my other tasks. i will ignore the non-leaders, if they wish to delete some articles, they will find i can create them faster than they can delete. for example we have MZMcBride who edits article space only 20% of the time Proding articles, spending most of his time talking on user pages, RfC's, and AfD's [10] clearly his priorities are not my own. Pohick2 (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
just to quibble for the sake of arguemnt "Without WP:N in some form, we'd have no real advantages over the web as a whole". well the advantage would be an organization of references in an essay format about the non-notable subject. the web (or a google) is unformed, disconnected, and unfriendly. if you combine google hits into a comprehensible whole, that is an improvement. the reason to have a notability standard is to focus editor time on subjects most likely to be useful to searchers. a rubric of limits, like the acquisition criteria for a library. Pohick2 (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that notability is in the eye of the beholder. Unfortunately, the majority (it appears) of such beholders are 'one-off' creators of BLPs and are therefore not in the slightest bit interested in cluing themselves up with the rules, regulations, guidelines, on the 100s of pages of Wikipedia policy before they start. Odd how they conveniently fail to notice the Encyclopedic content must be verifiable notice below every edit window. I still maintain that criteria to create new BLPs should include forced user registration, minimum of 3 days membership, and at least one perfectly verifiable source , not open collaborative-Internet sites such as the IMDB source. --Kudpung (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see arguments for making our notability guidelines a little stricter or a little more relaxed, or just resolving some of the anomalies that to my mind make it much easier for a professional sportsperson to qualify for a wikipedia article than a published academic. But we do get 9 year olds writing obituaries on pet hamsters and articles on rock bands who will hold their first rehearsal next Tuesday if they can find a bass guitarist; I would be very uncomfortable if wikipedia didn't retain the editorial control to reject such entries. However I think that debating notability is a digression from this RFC, as the focus here is supposed to be on whether or not unsourced BLP are so unacceptable that they have to be eradicated regardless of notability. If people want to alter the notability rules I would suggest a separate RFC would be in order. ϢereSpielChequers 14:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WereSpielChequers, nicely put. At least someone else agrees that a considerable number of the crap BLPs are about sportskids in a vlllage elemenrary school team,, garage band members, and obvious attempts by children to become Wikipedians. However, as you also correctly point out, notability is not one of the four completely different issues already being discussed on this page in utter, total, and complete confusion.--Kudpung (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a terribly misleading statement. I've opened and read thousands of the unreferenced BLPs, I've found sources for hundreds. I've seen articles that I don't know how to source, but I have not seen any as frivolous as the examples you cite. Maybe those have already been deleted and even I would agree to the rational deletion of such extreme examples. But to categorize any part of the articles in this discussion as being that "crap" (to use your word) is inappropriate. Its just as irresponsible to categorize these 40K of articles as being libelous. A handful might be. I've found heavily referenced articles I would consider libelous if I were the person on the receiving end--but then if I had those charges against me, as documented in court records, I wouldn't be happy about it, even though it was true. The truth sometimes hurts.Trackinfo (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After the above I think I should articulate a few categories that encompass the majority of these unsourced BLP articles:
1) Athletes--predominantly "footballers" who qualify under WP:ATHLETE playing professionally someplace around the world. Some crew of editors have entered thousands of these, also cricketeers, hurlers (I don't even know the sport), American Football, Baseball, Basketball, Hockey, Australian Rules Football--the list of sports with stat heavy stub articles about these players is huge.
2) Government officials--tons of government officials, many of them in countries that (how do I say this diplomatically?) don't speak english, don't necessarily have their web documentation in a visible or understandable form for english speakers. Again, somebody has entered these articles so we can identify who these people are and what they do. I have no idea how to verify this stuff and obviously neither did the person who entered it. I've tried to chase the chain on several of these names, sometimes finding references to these people on diplomatic websites of larger countries.
3) Entertainers--we've got tons of actor/actress/singer/model lists of credits, some current, some celebrities of the past. A huge number of these are backed up by IMDB listings, but some people don't accept that as an acceptable source and therefore consider the entire article bogus--a huge leap in magnitude. By not accepting IMDB, its a pain to find other sources with as complete credits--funny how that works out. Yes, some of these contain extra fluff, promotional materials written by the artist or publicist. There are plenty of referenced articles with the same kind of fluff, planted better in media sources. The ones I have checked out back up the important items, the ones that are significant enough to qualify them for notability, listed in anybody's IMDB pretty well.
4) Academics--with writings and research documented within their circles. If you can find any sourcing, its usually from the university they work at, bios that are reprints from the resumes. Who could know how legit that stuff is?
Fitting in and around this stuff are other people who have done things like written a book (probably covered under 3 or 4); been a hero, victim, perpetrator or visible witness/journalist to an important event. The important message that seems to be missing here is a lopsided percentage of these articles are innocuous and factual if somebody would just take the time to look for the sources. That takes time, labor and knowledge of the subject. These aren't problems. Out of fear of the few bad apples, we have people here diverting our resources, our time and labor, to fixing these non-problems.Trackinfo (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Examples and Evidence
This conversation seems abstract to me. Many editors have requested numbers regarding the two topics of BLPs and deletionism. However, I have yet to see anyone provide concrete quantitative evidence or examples in these conversations. I've attempted to start this, below, and put them on one line to save space and added a count - if you think this is helpful, please update the count with your examples. Another issue is why they were deleted (notability or other), and whether it was speedy or not, but I don't know how to integrate that here. Can anyone suggest a better way of collecting this data and doing analysis, or has this already been done? Perhaps we should restrict this dataset to BLPs here? -kslays (talk • contribs) 17:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
cumulative outstanding BLPs minus BLPs sourcedA fictional chart with MADE UP numbers to demonstrate
Regarding how fast ureferenced BLPs are added and how quickly the backlog is being brought down, we have CAT:BLP, but I couldn't find numbers to put into a nice line graph. Envision a chart with number of unreferenced BLPs on Y, month on X, and four lines: new BLPs created (new unreferenced BLP tags added), BLPs sourced (tags removed), BLPs deleted, and total outstanding unreferenced BLPs (which now stands at about 40k). I looked through Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people, and CatScan doesn't have a date range option. I created a chart with only one line, "outstanding BLPs - BLPs sourced" from CAT:BLP, but I cannot derive any of the four lines (except for the current month) I'd want that could better inform policy decisions. -kslays (talk • contribs) 21:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
P.S. If you think this has already been hashed out in "phase I how many articles?" thoroughly, feel free to delete this BLP sourcing speed section to unclutter the discussion.[reply]
This is all very nice and probably took quite some effort to prepare, but IMHO it doesn't move the discussioin along. maybe a look at the talk page will help understand why some of the most serious contributors are now abandoning this whole project. If that's what is wanted, consensuses and decisions will be made by a rag-tag bunch of whoever's left - and based on experience, that would certainly and most probably not be a decision that would reflect what we might have wanted as a majority..--Kudpung (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, didn't take more than a few minutes, but I just wanted to see if anyone had an easy source for the numbers, so an easier decision could be made regarding the backlog, but okay, I see your point. Thanks for the response. -kslays (talk • contribs) 14:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fact is, kslays, that your graphics would have probably attracted more attention on the talk page, because that is where the real details appear to be being hacked out.
However, far too few of the posters to this RfC page are taking any notice at all of what is being said on the talk page, and vice versa, and both pages have now become a hopeless entangled mess because they are attempting to discuss four related, but entirely separate BLP issues in one RfC. Anyone joining that talk page now, would have to pretty much read through the whole ot, and that takes about 2 hours. The last few sections are mainly about the talk page itself, and are possibly the most poignant.--Kudpung (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sweeping the waves back into the ocean - misleading indicators
We badly need some reliable metrics and other measures of the community's effort to source BLPs. Yesterday the unsourced BLP count was 40,929, I alone sourced 15-20, the count was then about 40,900 as far as I remember - but right now, it has climbed back to 40,914. The present metrics indicate that we just try to sweep the waves back into the ocean, it's a Sisyfos task; its utterly demoralizing, and it may be misinterpreted (or abused) as "evidence" that nothing is being done. The steady increase shown in the graph above merely shows the level of bot-tagging activity, in particular during 2009, its really only the more recent time series that is interesting. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Instead wasting time with debate most editors could have source 1-20 articles. We waste so much effort on debates, and then punish content creators with permanent-AFD system. Kasaalan (talk) 10:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: AFD-deleted pages should be kept accessable for a month for established users who likes to improve for another AFD review. Kasaalan (talk) 10:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ese es el problema de empezar por el lugar equivocado y concentrarse en la métrica equivocada. El recuento de BLP sin fuentes aumenta cuando se agregan nuevos BLP sin fuentes, pero también aumenta cuando las personas categorizan y etiquetan artículos antiguos de hace años que cumplían con los estándares de la época pero que ahora algunos consideran un problema. Si aceptamos dejar de aceptar nuevos BLP sin fuentes, entonces, una vez que lo hayamos logrado, la categoría de BLP sin fuentes solo aumentará en los meses en que encontremos y etiquetemos más BLP antiguos de los que eliminemos o desmarquemos. Pero sigue siendo una prioridad incorrecta si queremos mejorar los BLP, sobre todo porque concentrarse en esa métrica nos distrae de problemas de BLP más graves, como los BLP sin fuentes que aún no se han identificado como tales y otras áreas problemáticas; Por ejemplo, desde la ola de borrado de BLP en enero, los artículos no controlados en Special:NewPages han aumentado drásticamente y ahora se remontan a 22 días, al 12 de febrero; en una hora que pases allí, es probable que encuentres más vandalismo que en una hora que pases revisando BLP antiguos sin fuentes. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 23:00, 6 de marzo de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
La discusión anterior está cerrada. No la modifique. Los comentarios posteriores deben realizarse en la página de discusión correspondiente. No se deben realizar más modificaciones a esta discusión.
Done... wooohoo! I can now see deleted articles. - Another foolhardy proposal which fails to recognize all if the issues that would amount if this actually came into action. Not only would I not ever trust everyone with 500 edits to see deleted information, a lot of deleted information is things that only people who have been voted in by the community should even be able to see. (Remember it is also considered the Poor man's oversight) Only a damn idiot would think that this would be acceptable. Oh of course... Okip and Cyclopia have added their support for this. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 10:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
