Wikipedia:Version System sketch: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:39, 3 August 2005

Latest revision as of 13:14, 29 November 2018

(6 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{historical}}

If you have no patience for words, this is not for you. I'm sorry, but I like words. Words have always been my second best friends.

Line 7 ⟶ 8:

==Preamble and motto==

Motto: '''Probitas laudatur et alget.''' ([[Juvenal]], ''Saitre I'', l. 740)

[[Image:Samarkand-beggars-1905.jpg|thumb|200px|Virtue Rewarded]]

Preamble: Few phrases are heard as often in the hallways of Wiki-central than "VfD is broken." I submit that we almost all agree with that, and, if we don't, we will soon. However, once we get past complaining that VfD, like the [[alimentary canal]] smells and looks bad and has unsightly overflows, we stop speaking the same language with each other. Even before we get to "the answer is," we begin speaking dialects, then languages, that are incomprehensible to each other except for their tone. "My" proposal (inverted commas to be understood any time anyone refers to this as my proposal, even if it's me), first of all ''will not end VfD.'' It will, second of all, attempt to address the fundamental issue of scale that certain Wiki-admins see as a mathematical doom placed on the project at the moment of its conception. Third, it will not be a "Sysop power grab" (a phrase delightful in its nonsense but aggravating in its vehement repetition). Fourth, it won't take the community out of the community decision making, but, at the same time, it won't mean a single extra vote. Fifth, it will teach your dog to speak [[Linear B]].

Line 19 ⟶ 20:

# VfD's consensus can chart new interpretations of deletion policy as they apply to previously unseen types of content, but they cannot determine that extant policy decisions be reversed or interpreted in one way or another.

# VfD is therefore applicable to articles about which there is debate, about which there is uncertainty, where a decision must be reached about this current example (X) fits into an existing set of rules or not.

[[Image:stomach colon rectum diagramStomach_colon_rectum_diagram.gif|thumb|left|160px|A healthy VfD process]]

So, VfD is therefore intended to be slow. It's deliberative and requires votes. Although Wikipedia has not yet instituted the most obvious requirements of a democracy (i.e. [[quorum]]), previously administrators closing out VfD debates would re-nominate articles that had not achieved many votes or which had such a confused voting pattern that dispensation in accordance with community views was impossible to determine. It was never intended to result in no alteration of the deliberated article unless the votes were, in fact, to leave the article as-is. Once on VfD, the article had to be changed in some way pending a ''consensus keep'' (not a lack of consensus keep). Consequently, it was slow, very slow, and the people who dealt with clearing old VfD's were heroic individuals who had to put in a monstrous amount of work to do the job.

Line 25 ⟶ 26:

##Voters have decreasingly been deliberating or disinterested or sufficiently numerous.

##"Political parties" have developed that marshal mass votes without regard to article content.

##Those clearing VfD have decided (and this '''is''' new, Tony) that failure to have consensus for delete or merge is the same thing as a consensus for keeping, when consensus-keep, consensus-delete, and consensus-merge are different things altogether, and it is as impossible to find a "rule" saying "consensus = X%" or "failure to achieve consensus specificially for delete or merge is a consensus to keep" as it is to find a specific rule saying "The plurality is honored in the event of a lack of consensus." The reason is that voters and arbiters are increasingly law-gaming, as they see VfD as ''non-deliberative'' and, instead, a venue for instant death and immortal life decisions.

##Speedy delete has expanded to relieve the bulge in VfD.

##Mis-tagged speedy deletes have expanded to relieve the bulge left in VfD after the expansion of speedy delete cases.

Line 97 ⟶ 98:

==[[Porky Pig]] says what?==

'''"All Your Objections Are Belong to Us":'''

# No, Virginia, it will '''not automatically delete anything.''' This proposal automatically ''nominates'' things for deletion by vote or speedy, but it does not and cannot pull the trigger.

# The Vikings will show up, yes, but they won't get anywhere. If they come in to sing their spam, or if they come in to try to foist their POV (another type of spam), they cannot defeat the ratings system's automatic function of quorum.

# The Visigoths, Alans, Franks, and such will show up, yes. They're here now. However, please note that no administrator function has been reduced, no ability to manually nominate for VfD has been taken away, and administrators can overwrite votes from "bad actors," as the Prednisent's People call them.

That's all I have.