3 ms·

I'm not going to say there isn't a problem at all. But I spend more than enough time in the trenches dealing with deletion to know that the vast majority of the

I'm not going to say there isn't a problem at all. But I spend more than enough time in the trenches dealing with deletion to know that the vast majority of the time, the stuff that gets deleted probably ought to have been. The standards aren't that arbitrary: for an article to exist, there needs to be significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

smsm42 14y ago
False positive in wiki editing is much, much worse than false negative. Just as with spam - if your spam filter deletes one email from your CEO, it is much worse than letting in 20 spam emails. Here, also, letting one uninformed, but active Wikipedia bureaucrat to prevail over a more informed scientist is much worse than letting 10 crappy articles to stay on the site and quietly rot while nobody visits them. The latter just wastes tiny bit of resources, the former actually has high potential to spread false information. And given lazy journalists frequently limit their research to looking up stuff in wikipedia, soon the falsity becomes "common knowledge" and then becomes its own source as publications quote Wikipedia which quotes publications.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  There is a deletion review, and articles can be undeleted.
  - gwern 14y ago
    DRV is completely worthless; it is purely for procedural issues, not a second AfD where the merits might be debated by a different group. Undeletion is about as common as hen's teeth: stuff deleted stays deleted.
    - chris_wot 14y ago
      Voted down? There's irony.
bane 14y ago
with "significant", "multiple", "independent" and "reliable" all being decided arbitrarily depending on which deletionist you are dealing with
brigade 14y ago
My problem is that for wikipedians, "independent reliable sources" means internet articles. If it's a printed book, it doesn't exist.
- mjn 14y ago
  That hasn't been my experience. I usually cite printed sources in articles when I write them, and most articles I edit that were written by others seem to also be based primarily on books. Some statistics would be interesting, though. I would imagine online sources are more common in articles on recent events, and in articles on popular culture. In the area I mainly edit in (pre-20th-century history) it's almost entirely books and journal articles.
  - metasj 14y ago
    A good citation to a printed published work grants you demigod-like powers when editing an article - if the work itself is notable. If it's self-published or has no information demonstrating it is a reliable source, not so much.
    - mjn 14y ago
      Yeah, I've found it really reduces any hassles over "notability" if you're citing solid published sources. If I'm writing an article on a Greek archaeological site, and my article cites The Oxford History of Greece and the Hellenistic World, case is pretty much closed.

smsm42 14y ago

False positive in wiki editing is much, much worse than false negative. Just as with spam - if your spam filter deletes one email from your CEO, it is much worse than letting in 20 spam emails. Here, also, letting one uninformed, but active Wikipedia bureaucrat to prevail over a more informed scientist is much worse than letting 10 crappy articles to stay on the site and quietly rot while nobody visits them. The latter just wastes tiny bit of resources, the former actually has high potential to spread false information. And given lazy journalists frequently limit their research to looking up stuff in wikipedia, soon the falsity becomes "common knowledge" and then becomes its own source as publications quote Wikipedia which quotes publications.

chris_wot 14y ago
There is a deletion review, and articles can be undeleted.
- gwern 14y ago
  DRV is completely worthless; it is purely for procedural issues, not a second AfD where the merits might be debated by a different group. Undeletion is about as common as hen's teeth: stuff deleted stays deleted.
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    Voted down? There's irony.

bane 14y ago

with "significant", "multiple", "independent" and "reliable" all being decided arbitrarily depending on which deletionist you are dealing with

brigade 14y ago

My problem is that for wikipedians, "independent reliable sources" means internet articles. If it's a printed book, it doesn't exist.

mjn 14y ago
That hasn't been my experience. I usually cite printed sources in articles when I write them, and most articles I edit that were written by others seem to also be based primarily on books. Some statistics would be interesting, though. I would imagine online sources are more common in articles on recent events, and in articles on popular culture. In the area I mainly edit in (pre-20th-century history) it's almost entirely books and journal articles.
- metasj 14y ago
  A good citation to a printed published work grants you demigod-like powers when editing an article - if the work itself is notable. If it's self-published or has no information demonstrating it is a reliable source, not so much.
  - mjn 14y ago
    Yeah, I've found it really reduces any hassles over "notability" if you're citing solid published sources. If I'm writing an article on a Greek archaeological site, and my article cites The Oxford History of Greece and the Hellenistic World, case is pretty much closed.