The comparison with India article in March 2001 is irrelevant , IMHO. That
was 2001, less than 2 months after Wikipedia was born. We have come a long
way and changed in last 10 years. :) Sorry, No pun intended.

Having said that, I don't personally believe in blind deletion of short
articles, having myself created 100s of stub articles on English Wikipedia.
But for smaller Wikipedias ( is size), it is advisable to take a different
approach for better articles and making it a useful Wikipedia in a longer
run. Like my boss keeps saying, quality matters more than quantity.

-Tinu Cherian

On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Nikhil Sheth <> wrote:

> Hi Mayur,
> Please elaborate on whether by one word article you mean articles with one
> word in the title, or with one word in the whole article?
> If the former, please justify the rationale. Why should a person who can
> only read Hindi be barred from reading an article on a one-word object,
> like  aeroplane, or car, or bicycle, or maths, or chemistry, or religion, or
> universe, etc? (If it's the latter, leave it, my bad!)
> And I can't help but wonder : if those 20,000 articles had only been marked
> as spam / stub / bias / advertisement / vandalism / baby instead of
> deleting, wouldn't at least some of them have evolved into good quality
> articles by now?
> I understand that the community (or a few people?) wants good quality at
> any cost. But I don't see any plan of actually getting there; rather there
> seem to be plenty of plans and bots in place to prevent it from happening at
> all.
> I see the egoistic expectation of instant gratification rather than the
> humble acceptance that there is a time-taking process for anything that is
> to achieve good quality. I've seen what initially was written in the english
> wikipedia article on India when it was first created. It was one line with
> two typos. See image:
> Under the present "regime", it would have probably been deleted instantly
> and perhaps the article would never have taken off and we wouldn't have any
> article on India today. Or perhaps the person who started it, would have
> been put down and might never have made the 118 edits he's done till now.
> Is there any source from which we can get the list of deleted articles in
> any wikipedia? I'd very much like to see it.
> Would it be possible to see what their content was when they were deleted?
> And also the users who deleted them?
> If the above is not publicly (or, on request) available just like all the
> other statistics are, then I fear we have a terrible hole in accountability
> here. Like all other processes, wikipedia should have its deletion process
> also transparent to all to prevent sabotage or hostile actions against the
> community.
> As a more effective solution, I would advocate that deletion be done only
> when at least 3 or more admins concur, within a certain time interval, and
> that too after a certain amount of time has been permitted for the article
> to "prove itself". The talk page of the article is the perfect place for
> such a dialog. This consensus-less deleting business seems a little too
> creepy to be comfortable with in what is supposed to be a consensus-based
> platform.
> Cheers,
> Nikhil Sheth
> +91-966-583-1250
> Pune, India
> Teach For India <> Fellow, 2011-13
> Find me on: Twitter <> | 
> Facebook<>|
> LinkedIn <> | Google
> <>| 
> RangDe<>
> Join me on: Pune Documentary 
> Club<>| Let's
> Do it Pune <>| 
> Toastmasters
> in Pune<>| 
> Wikipedia
> For Schools 
> project<>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:01 PM, mayur <> wrote:
>> if we would not have deleted 20, 000 articles in last 3 months we might
>> cross 1 lakhs articles threshold, But we want to maintain Quality and
>> Quantity Both.We have banned only one word article through abuse filter
>> because 99.99% of them are vandalized articles.if  Any body go beyond one
>> word he will be able to write an article in hindi wikipedia.
>> Thank you and Regards
>> Mayur
>> Hindi Wikipedian
>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Nikhil Sheth <>wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>> I'm not fully sure where the community is going on this topic, but here's
>>> my two cents on deletion of articles in Indian /any language wikipedias:
>>> *It should not happen. Period.*
>>> At least not until we reach a qualitative number that is proportional to
>>> the population of people in the world that knows that language. Look at the
>>> charts. Where is any Indian language? Hindi is bloody 
>>> 39th!<>The Lithuanian 
>>> language has more articles than we do! Do you think there are
>>> more Lithuanian speaking people on this planet than there are Hindi speaking
>>> people?? How about we ask them if they went on a murdering spree when they
>>> were #39??
>>> Q: But 95% are vandalism/biased/useless!
>>> A: So put a "Vandalized article" template on it that says it in
>>> HUMONGOUSLY HUGE letters that even a chimpanzee can read and put it out
>>> there that we need someone to come and un-vandalize it, for the humanity's
>>> sake! If we treat articles on wikipedia as living documents, then what we
>>> are doing by deletion is genocide.
>>> Q: But they decrease the quality!
>>> A: Why are you expecting a 5 minute old baby to score well in a 12th
>>> grade exam? Do you mind giving it some time to mature on its own before
>>> failing it and then fussing about "oh, it's not good enough!" Who gave
>>> anybody the right to judge a baby's future potential?
>>> Q: But they are dangerous to the community and Humanity and blah and
>>> blooh...!
>>> A: First, take your ego and any pride you may have, and shove it. Then,
>>> prove your claims. One stub/vandalized article that is publicly declared to
>>> be a stub / vandalized article.... is going to end the world? Oh, really!!
>>> Is it going to show India in a bad light? Who the bloody hell gave
>>> wikipedians the authority to represent India? Who voted you into power??
>>> Does the English Wikipedia represent UK/USA ? Can we please de-link the
>>> nation from its languages? Last I checked, a lot of non-Indians speak Hindi
>>> the same way a lot of Indians speak German or Japanese.
>>> Q: What's the problem with deleting crappy articles?
>>> A: The exact same problem that comes from Indians aborting a girl child
>>> because in their present environment they feel she will be a crappy addition
>>> to the family. Right now, at this point in time and space, YOU may feel that
>>> the particular article isn't necessary. Your opinions are subjective to the
>>> environment you are in. Your opinion may change tomorrow, but that
>>> contributor you chased out will not come back just like all those girls we
>>> aborted will not come back, or like all those mothers who were forced to
>>> abort, will not forgive their husband or in-laws. I beg YOU to live and let
>>> live. Suspend your judgment; don't be so harsh in your pursuit for
>>> perfection. It might turn out that the article you allowed to exist today
>>> may become the BEST article in that wikipedia tomorrow, the same way that
>>> girl child we do not abort today may become a role model for all Indians
>>> tomorrow.
>>> *Suggestion: How about creating a "baby" template and so setting a
>>> proper path to maturity, making room for the extremities of puberty (aka,
>>> bias, vandalism etc etc) in between while preventing this genocidally
>>> judgmental behavior?
>>> *
>>> Q: What's the problem with deleting?
>>> A: Do you have a problem with NOT deleting? Are those few bytes occupied
>>> going to bring the servers down? Do you mind putting a template there and
>>> backing off? Do you mind thinking constructively for once?
>>> Q: If we encourage the vandals, they'll get more prolific and they'll...
>>> A: ...And we'll revert the instances of vandalism, identify and block the
>>> repeat offenders, or influence them to turn a page like we always do. Every
>>> vandal is a human being that isn't programmed the way your are accusing
>>> him/her to be. Nobody has any evil agenda against our wikipedias. There is
>>> no incentive for anyone to do what we are  fear-mongering about; rather the
>>> only incentive exists in the opposite direction. Stop living in a warped
>>> psychological state where we need an enemy to justify our own existence,
>>> stop destroying the future in the name of defense against an enemy that does
>>> not exist. If you're sure they do, please prove your claims. The problem we
>>> are discussing is about deletion of new articles. Don't hijack it with
>>> insecurities, negativity and fear-mongering.
>>> Even in English Wikipedia, there is a growing movement to stop speedy
>>> deletions that are being perceived by many to have gone out of control and
>>> to be doing more harm than good, for they are giving disproportionate power
>>> to the incumbents. Over the next few years, expect a rot and stagnation
>>> there if these destructive attitudes continue. Just because some one else is
>>> possibly jumping off a cliff, why should we?
>>> *Some wikipedians look at articles the way they are and wonder "Why"?
>>> and then go around deleting them like it's their God-given duty to throw the
>>> baby out with the bath water.
>>> I dream of articles that never were, wonder "Why Not?" and believe in
>>> allowing those 95% new crazy articles to EXIST, because within a few years,
>>> as surely as the sun rises from the East, I guarantee you almost all those
>>> articles will transform into non-vandalized and good articles if you just
>>> allowed them to breathe a little instead of murdering them.
>>> Controversial Statement: Today, it is the deleters among the community
>>> that are the real Vandals of Indian language wikipedias, for they are
>>> unintentionally destroying the future while pretending to defend a feeble
>>> present.
>>> *
>>> (hey, we say the new editors shouldn't take it negatively or personally
>>> when they are charged with vandalism or bias and their creations are wiped
>>> out... now let's see our oldies stand up to the same test! Feeling offended
>>> on being called Vandals, guys? Don't take it personally! :P)
>>> Yeah, that's about it. Peace, May you all Live and Let Live and not
>>> commit bloody genocide in the name of quality.
>>> PS: The baby analogy will DEFINITELY bring more female editors in. Try
>>> it!
>>> Cheers,
>>> Nikhil Sheth
>>> +91-966-583-1250
>>> Pune, India
>>> Teach For India <> Fellow, 2011-13
>>> Find me on: Twitter <> | 
>>> Facebook<>|
>>> LinkedIn <> | Google
>>> <>| 
>>> RangDe<>
>>> Join me on: Pune Documentary 
>>> Club<>| Let's
>>> Do it Pune<>| 
>>> Toastmasters
>>> in 
>>> Pune<>| 
>>> Wikipedia
>>> For Schools 
>>> project<>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list

Reply via email to