On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 9:31 AM, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 14 April 2013 14:29, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 14 April 2013 14:21, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> We have Wales to "thank" for the absurd "Articles for Creation" process > (Is > >> that still around? I haven't checked in a long time.). Seems to me > that > >> constitutes a "significant role in debates over inclusion deletion". > > > Only by a stretch. I'd call it an argument against top-down > > intervention. There is no such thing as rescue by magic, and berating > > someone for failing to do the impossible strikes me as pointless. > > Pretty much everything that's fucked up about Wikipedia is emergent > > behaviour of people being a problem, and top-down magic can't possibly > > scale to fix that. It can cripple it, though. > > > I'll also note that I suspect opening up article creation to anons > again will be impossible within the community - because they actually > wanted to lock it down even further, and the Foundation stepped in and > said "no, keep it open". I don't see what the stretch is. Wales made it much more difficult for Wikipedia neophytes to create new articles. That's pretty clearly relevant to the inclusion/deletion debate. As far as what is possible/impossible, I think you're largely correct. As was suggested by Gwern, the "inclusionists" were largely driven out, and the 2005/2006 time frame was probably the peak of that. I'm certainly not suggesting that article creation be reopened to anons and that this is going to solve anything. Actually I'm not suggesting anything at all as far as what should be done. I make an occasional edit, usually with a throwaway account or under an IP address, but I don't follow this stuff that much any more. I'm not even saying very much about whether or not the right choices were made back in the 2003/2004/2005/2006 time-frame that I'm familiar with. I do think "Articles for Creation" is absurd, though even that is more a comment on the technology/interface than on the idea (if you want to make new articles go through a review process, there are much better ways to design the interface). But for the most part what caused me to comment was to point out facts in the history which are relevant to others who wish to make those evaluations. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
