| Revision as of 05:22, 1 February 2010 view sourceIkip (talk | contribs)59,234 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:34, 1 February 2010 view source Ikip (talk | contribs)59,234 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
| |<!--oppose--> | |<!--oppose--> | ||
| |<!--netural--> | |<!--netural--> | ||
| |<!--stance--> | |||
| |-align=center valign=top | |-align=center valign=top | ||
| |<!--name--> | |<!--name-->] | ||
| |<!--posted--> | |<!--posted-->16:24, 21 January 2010 | ||
| |align=left|<!--proposal-->"A significant minority of editors are unwilling to let unsourced, but likely uncontentious biographies remain in the encyclopedia. Deleting content makes the text available to only a select few, and makes fixing the articles a significantly harder process. I suggest an alternative to tackle the backlog of the roughly 50k articles in question: | |||
| |align=left|<!--proposal--> | |||
| * We institute a process to hide the contents of unsourced biographies, using a template developed for the purpose. | |||
| * We provide clear instruction that sourcing must be instituted before the template is removed (easily checkable by automated means) | |||
| * Those articles which have remained in this hidden state for a reasonable, but fairly long, amount of time, but which have not been fixed are deleted. | |||
| This allows us to work towards preserving the content of these articles, while maintaining respect for the potential harm unsourced biographies may cause." | |||
| |<!--support--> | |<!--support--> | ||
| |<!--oppose--> | |<!--oppose--> | ||
| |<!--netural--> | |<!--netural--> | ||
| |<!--stance--> | |||
| |-align=center valign=top | |-align=center valign=top | ||
| |<!--name--> | |<!--name-->] | ||
| |<!--posted--> | |<!--posted-->16:57, 21 January 2010 | ||
| |align=left|<!--proposal-->Earlier this month ] started gently chiding the authors of unsourced BLPs. I think we should wait a couple of weeks to see what effect that has on ], or if people want to give DASHBot a hand, look for retired/inactive/blocked users who DASHBot has spoken to and help them fix or delete their unsourced contributions. | |||
| |align=left|<!--proposal--> | |||
| ...can someone write a Bot to inform wikiprojects of unsourced BLPs in their remit in the same way that DASHBot has been informing authors?" | |||
| After starting with the new stuff, and seeing how much DashBot can improve the crud, and seeing if flagged revisions can protect the rest, and then proding the unreferenced residue in batches over a couple of months, then I agree with delete unsourced BLPs on sight as the policy we should be able to enact in say 6 months. But with the following provisos: | |||
| # An unsourced biography should at the very least have its history checked to see if reverting a bit of vandalism won't restore it to a referenced article. | |||
| # Good faith contributions should never be deleted without the author being informed and given an easy route to getting their article restored for their next editing session. | |||
| # We also need an exception for articles being restored and referenced - some sort of template such as prod that can be added to a restored article so that the person requesting its restoration has at least a few hours to do so. | |||
| # Any user should be able to request, and any admin permitted to restore an existing article deleted under this process, provided the requester is promising to reference the article ASAP. | |||
| |<!--support--> | |<!--support--> | ||
| |<!--oppose--> | |<!--oppose--> | ||
| |<!--netural--> | |<!--netural--> | ||
| |<!--stance-->Stricker | |||
| |-align=center valign=top | |-align=center valign=top | ||
| |<!--name--> | |<!--name--> | ||
| Line 124: | Line 143: | ||
| |<!--oppose--> | |<!--oppose--> | ||
| |<!--netural--> | |<!--netural--> | ||
| |<!--stance--> | |||
| |-align=center valign=top | |-align=center valign=top | ||
| |<!--name--> | |<!--name--> | ||
| Line 131: | Line 151: | ||
| |<!--oppose--> | |<!--oppose--> | ||
| |<!--netural--> | |<!--netural--> | ||
| |<!--stance--> | |||
| |-align=center valign=top | |-align=center valign=top | ||
| |<!--name--> | |<!--name--> | ||
| Line 145: | Line 166: | ||
| |<!--oppose--> | |<!--oppose--> | ||
| |<!--netural--> | |<!--netural--> | ||
| |<!--stance--> | |||
| |-align=center valign=top | |-align=center valign=top | ||
| |<!--name--> | |<!--name--> | ||
| Line 152: | Line 174: | ||
| |<!--oppose--> | |<!--oppose--> | ||
| |<!--netural--> | |<!--netural--> | ||
| |<!--stance--> | |||
| |} | |} | ||
Revision as of 05:34, 1 February 2010
| submission | submission time | subject | Support (S) |
Oppose (O) |
Neutral (N) |
Stance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MZMcBride | 15:58, 21/01/2010 | "poorly referenced or completely unreferenced should be deleted on-sight" | 54 | 156 | 1 | Stricter - Delete all |
| Jehochman | 16:14, 21/01/2010 |
|
163 | 34 | 1 | Stricter |
| Jclemens | 16:22, 21/01/2010 | "The risk reduced--and let's be clear, there certainly will be some--is insufficient to justify the widespread deletion of accurate, useful, and innocuous information, sourced or not, and ultimately damages Misplaced Pages without helping BLP vandalism subjects." | 81 | 19 | 0 | No change |
| Collect | 16:16, 21/01/2010 | "Existence of a person is not, however, controversial nor contentious. WP has policies for deleting articles lacking notability, and no Draconian policy of automatic article deletion should pre-empt the orderly functioning of processes already existing." | 81 | 19 | 3 | No change |
| David Gerard | 16:17, 21/01/2010 | "I suggest a PROD-like template - call it BLP-PROD - which says "Find references for this article or it DIES." Five days seems too long, make it two days." | 64 | 46 | 1 | Stricter |
| DGG | 17:10, 21/01/2010 | "For old articles, a procedure of summary deletion is particularly reckless." | 63 | 5 | 4 | No change |
| Power.corrupts | 18:12, 21/01/2010 | "The real problem is unsourced contentious info, not unreferenced articles. The proposal will do nothing or little to the real problem, and at the same time incur tremendous costs." | 48 | 14 | 0 | No change |
| Sandstein | 19:25, 21/01/2010 | "The arbcom motion is not to be understood as changing or superseding general deletion policy and process as applied to the biographies of living persons, and it should be considered void if and insofar as it might have been intended to have that effect. Instead, any policy change should be decided by community consensus, starting with this RfC." | 73 | 5 | 3 | N/A |
| Jimbo Wales | 15:14, 25/01/2010 | "Starting with everything which has been unreferenced for more than 3 years, a three-month notice time starting February 1st, before they are deleted on May 1st. 2. Starting with everything which has been unreferenced for more than 2 years, a three-month notice time starting May 1st, before they are deleted on August 1st. 3. Starting with everything which has been unferenced for more than 1 year, a three-month notice time starting August first, before they are deleted on November 1st.
In all cases, biographies deleted for being old and unreferenced should be put onto a list for those who wish to come behind and work on them further. After that, we can consider how long is a reasonable life span (I would say one week, but one month could be fine as well) for new biographies to exist in a sad state before they are deleted. |
36 | 24 | 4 | Stricter |
| Aymatth2 | 13:39, 24 January 2010 | This proposal is to create a mechanically ranked list of all unsourced BLPs, so editors who want to remove inappropriate articles can work up from the bottom of the list, and editors who want to retain valuable content can work down from the top. Obvious ranking criteria would be:
The values would be given weightings in a ranking formula such as: (inboundlinks x 100) + (uniqueeditors x 150) + (sizekb x 50) - (agedays x 1) - (lasteditdays x 0.5) |
||||
| Henrik | 16:24, 21 January 2010 | "A significant minority of editors are unwilling to let unsourced, but likely uncontentious biographies remain in the encyclopedia. Deleting content makes the text available to only a select few, and makes fixing the articles a significantly harder process. I suggest an alternative to tackle the backlog of the roughly 50k articles in question:
This allows us to work towards preserving the content of these articles, while maintaining respect for the potential harm unsourced biographies may cause." |
||||
| WereSpielChequers | 16:57, 21 January 2010 | Earlier this month User:DASHBot started gently chiding the authors of unsourced BLPs. I think we should wait a couple of weeks to see what effect that has on Category:All unreferenced BLPs, or if people want to give DASHBot a hand, look for retired/inactive/blocked users who DASHBot has spoken to and help them fix or delete their unsourced contributions.
...can someone write a Bot to inform wikiprojects of unsourced BLPs in their remit in the same way that DASHBot has been informing authors?" After starting with the new stuff, and seeing how much DashBot can improve the crud, and seeing if flagged revisions can protect the rest, and then proding the unreferenced residue in batches over a couple of months, then I agree with delete unsourced BLPs on sight as the policy we should be able to enact in say 6 months. But with the following provisos:
|
Stricker | |||