It would be great that, instead of deleting an article, the usual deleters would be given a 'flag as source-less/needs improvement' where it would go to a Wikipedia section of poor articles, where people who know would improve them. And, no article, in whatever section, could be deleted unless there's a general consensus.
-- Alvaro On 13-01-2009, at 5:22, Noah Salzman <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:10 AM, [email protected] wrote: > >> These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so >> reader >> wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are "acceptable" in the >> mainstream, >> but they would be present for people already in-world to read and >> edit. > > > Makes sense to me. If the "articles for deletion" process is usurped > by the "articles for purgatory" process then it transforms the debate > entirely. If you keep losing at chess than change the game to > checkers, rather than continuing to complain about losing at chess. > > Deletion could remain a standard process but with much clearer and > stricter guidelines. Perhaps, it could be changed to "innocent until > proven guilty" as opposed to the deletion process now where the > defendant has to do a ton of busy work to save a "guilt-assumed" > article. > > As someone somewhat removed from the politics of the project, my main > question is what does the step-by-step process look like for making > this change happen? I imagine there is more than one path: grass roots > consensus building vs lobbying The Powers That Be? > > My apologies if that is an amusingly naive way of putting it. > > --Noah-- > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
