Yes, you are raising very good points, I will have to take on the
responsibility to put more work into this, I hope that other people will
help curate the leftovers.
my contact address is on the disclaimer on the main page and anyone is free
to edit and blank out articles that are a problem.
there are some gems in that muck however, and I intend to help them out of
the dirt.

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Andrew Gray <>wrote:

> On 11 June 2012 08:40, Mike  Dupont <>
> wrote:
> > After rereading your question, it boils down to if the tags are wrong. If
> > the tags are wrong we will have to deal with them on a case by case
> issue,
> > and I see that we will have to do more finer tagging of articles to be
> > deleted, I hope that this will be the outcome of my effort to see that
> > articles that are properly tagged and deleted according to a fair and
> > transparent set of rules. lets work on this together to make the
> wikipedia
> > better.
> There's a couple of problems here.
> One is that speedy deletion tags don't often get stacked - if people
> see something that fills two criteria, they'll often tag them with
> just one, and usually prefer the "clearer" criteria, the one with less
> subjectivity about interpretation. Usually, this is seen with "copyvio
> + not notable" = only tag for copyvio; but it also manifests itself in
> the cases Brad mentions - not notable + negatively slanted = usually
> tagged for notability rather than negativity. This is a problem,
> because understandably most of the cases you want to *keep* are the
> "not-notable" ones...
> Secondly, some admins will delete abusive material on sight without
> waiting to tag it (which is skirting around best practice, but widely
> accepted for unambiguously "bad" content), and some people prefer to
> use "hand-written" CSD reasons. Both of these may end up with
> harder-to-interpret deletion logs (they don't contain the codes) - I'm
> not sure how your system works with these.
> > What is the current policy now? you have articles in dumps that contain
> > these offending materials i presume if they are not that new. What is the
> > difference between a dump on wikpedia and a dump on, and a
> dump
> > on wikia?
> The difference is that one is a hard-to-accidentally-stumble-across
> dump, and one is a publicly readable website ;-)
> I do not believe there are active moves to remove material from older
> dumps. *However*, the damage from problematic material surviving in
> dumps is relatively low, because most speedily deleted material tends
> never to make it into a dump.
> Let's assume dumps are twice-weekly. If every article tagged for
> speedy deletion "on creation" lasts for six hours before being
> removed, then there's approximately a 1/60 chance of it being around
> to when the dump triggers. By contrast, around 50% of articles marked
> with PROD just after creation will survive into the dump, even if
> deleted, and substantially over 50% of articles put through AFD on
> creation will be dumped even if deleted, because the frequency of
> relisting means many of them are tagged for two weeks.
> As a result, CSD material - which is where the worst content usually
> is - is much less likely to get dumped than AFD material.
> Some dumped abusive material does make it out onto reuse sites,
> though, and it's an incredible pain to deal with - people find it a
> year or two later, mirrored on an abandoned ad-farm website, and write
> us distressed letters about trying to get it removed. We can't do
> anything about it - these sites are usually completely uncontactable
> and don't care anyway - and it's quite an unpleasant experience for
> all concerned.
> If you're going to expose these on wikia as well as making archive
> files, I'd strongly recommend you give a clearly visible contact
> address to have material removed if needed - it'll save everyone
> involved lot of stress in future!
> --
> - Andrew Gray
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Unsubscribe:

James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova
Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world
Mozilla Rep
Wikimedia-l mailing list

Reply via email to