Thanks you for all the responses. It is really great to see this
various explanations.

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 4:27 PM, John <phoenixoverr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we do not have checks and balances in place wikipedia will quickly get
> overrun with articles on everyone and everything to ever exist regardless
> of the actual notability of the person/place/thing/event.

Hm, while I understand the goal of high quality content, I do not
understand why this has to be so black and white? Existence vs.
non-existence? Why not introducing a third level of content, so that
we would have something like:

- encyclopedic article in the main namespace
- non-encyclopedic draft/stub/sandbox article in the same main namespace
- deleted articles in a special namespace

There could be a special very small set of really deleted articles for
legal reasons.

The main idea I would propose is that all of those articles should be
editable. Even if article is deleted, people should be able to
continue editing it, it should just be made that robots cannot index
them, for example, and that they are under some special namespace. The
reason is that it is much easier if you can edit it and improve it and
then through time maybe things change, maybe somebody becomes notable
through time and their content can be brought back.

The same for so-called non-encyclopedic content which do not merit
entry by current standards. Some of those should be kept with clear
visual tags that content is not yet up to the standard of Wikipedia.
We could even make it so that you first get an full overlay warning
and you have to click through to get to the content.

I think the whole issue of inclusionists and deletionists is so
problematic because we do not step back and observe that there could
be ways to address both concerns with slight changes to the process,
and probably small technical changes.

It is really not necessary to be introducing artificial scarcity.

From what I read this has been going on from 2008 at least, when Paul
Graham included to fix this among his startup ideas:


This is 8 years ago.

I might really do not understand something here, but what is the plan
to solve this problem? Are we just waiting for something to happen?
Why are we not discussing how to find a solution which would find a
consensus in the community? In 8 years there should really already be
a solution?

So, what are issues people have with my proposal above? Why would not
this satisfy both groups?

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Brill Lyle <wp.brilll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mitar is not being specific about the entry and seems more into discussing
> the process.

Oh, I would of course like that we discuss the particular article and
get feedback on it, positive or negative. Anything helps. And I can
learn more. I just do not want us to digress from the topic which for
me is more even important: how to improve this experience for everyone
in the future as well. I will survive. But I am a privileged white
male with a good grasp of technology who experienced various online
communities through years. But what about others? What about people
who might have less command of the English language and would have
issues discussing all this through? Who do not have so much time to
discuss things through?

What we will do about that?

Maybe I should not care and I should just try to address the issues
with my article and move on. But when will then anything change?

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Brill Lyle <wp.brilll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gadzooks! The comments you made about friendly editors to a large community
> of Wikipedia editors, maybe re-think saying that. I'm having a hard time
> getting past these comments. *I* am a friendly editor, and am actually able
> to help you.

Oh, sorry. I didn't mean it like that. I more than appreciate all the
help and responses I am getting here. What I mean is that I would hope
that it is possible to edit the Wikipedia without knowing editors and
admins individually. But this would probably mean even more
bureaucratic process, so maybe it is even better like this.
Personally, I believe all editors are good people, with a common goal,
it seems we just disagree sometimes, but this probably also comes from
dissymmetry of information about particular things. Mine about
Wikipedia rules, theirs about a particular topic. Addressing this
dissymmetry is done through discussions.

I see how that comment might offended. Sorry again.

> But you have basically said you have too much of a life to
> engage, IRC is HARD, etc. Huh.

I am trying to present this as an occasional editor. Yes, one solution
to issues I have is to get to know Wikipedia rules and community more,
to get more engaged and integrated. This is a completely valid

But I wonder, is there an alternative path. What about occasional
editor who might not have resources to embark on this path.
Personally, it seems, I am already walking it. Yes, IRC is doable, of
course. But this is because I get activated when I get frustrated and
start thinking how to solve the problem. Instead of deactivated. My
worry with that comment was that more obstacles are there, harder is
to resolve such issues.

> Quite frankly, without specifics about the entry -- and the citations used
> -- there's nothing anyone can do to help you. ... Which is fine, but I was
> trying to help solve the problem.

Oh, sorry. I thought you already find the page? So it is this page:


Sadly, I do not have its content anymore either. So I do not remember
which sources I put there. I researched things at that time. You do
not have access to the content either?

BTW, this is in fact very strange that creator of the article and
editors of that article cannot access their own content anymore. I
think that might be even illegal in Europe. I should be able to access
my own content based on privacy laws, no?

So, should I find sources again?

One quick thing I found now is that their Facebook page has 7.000 likes:


The biggest daily newspaper in Slovenia (like New York Times) has 70.000 likes:


Having one tenth of likes seems quite a good sign that for the local
community this space is significant.



Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to