User:Isonomia/AfD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  • As a one month old user, I'm probably an unwelcome intruder to this conversation. However I was so incensed by the way I was treated and the way Wikipedia misleads newcomers into believing they will be tolerated that I've tried to see whether it is possible to change things.
  1. Propose as default Firstly when one looks for an article which isn't there if you just press "enter", (go/search) you go to a screen where there is no option to propose an article (I thought someone had removed it yesterday because of this!)
  2. Don't invite guests to a riot In the present climate, new Users should be strongly discouraged from starting a new article when they happen to find it is not in the encyclopedia. I heard on the radio: "anyone can do it - all are welcome" from your representative. Then when I came I felt I was "mugged"; It wasn't so much the mugging, it was the friendly invitation to the mugging which I really hated!
  3. Improve not deleteYou must change the attitude from one of "deleting" to one of "Improving". I've just had an email from someone who was quite put off by the deletion notice and had given up. Apparently my few words of "its a good article but needs work - it doesn't need delete but improvement" has spurred him on.
  4. Welcome guestsThe AfD system is an affront to new users. One is expecting someone to come in and help, instead all one gets is meaningless jargon and calls to delete without knowing anything about what is happening. My first article was on incrementalism (the philosophy of Wikipedia) I happened to have seen the idea in several academic papers and used it myself. It didn't seem unreasonable to start and entry when I was invited. What was perplexing was the hostility of the editors. Another example is Induction programme again attacked - perhaps Wikipedia doesn't believe on an induction process?
  5. Change the policy name -NOW! I have proposed scrapping the "deletion policy" and instead replacing it with an "improvement policy". You don't even need to change any rules - just change the name and overnight the whole ethos of deletion will change from what appears to those involved as an attack to one where if an article needs to be deleted it is because it can not or is not being improved!
  6. AfD - doesn't help the author At present the AfD consentrates on why an article should be deleted. As such the discussion is almost useless to a new person who does not know any of the policies being mentioned (I couldn't even sign ~ ~ ~ ~). The AfD process needs to focus on ways to improve the article rather than why it should be deleted. E.g. Delete POV (I may have got that the wrong way round), isn't much help. To say: "You must be neutral and include all views" tells the author where they are going wrong.
  7. Improvement=Evidence/Delete=Opinion It is very easy to say "Delete", but it is much more difficult to say "this article cannot be improved" - which forces those asking to delete to detail the reasons (something that is sadly lacking - they may know but a new person hasn't a clue!) The AfD needs to be based on evidence rather than opinion. Someone saying "I've never heard of it" should count almost nothing compared to someone who has done a search for the term or an expert in the field (normally the author) saying "it is a concept in common usage"
  8. The AfD must separate discussion on the article's content from the article's name. E.g. I started improving a bad article on "Lords Reform" by cutting and pasting lots of information from biased sources - suddenly the article (not my additions) was under threat. Too often badely written articles or articles under development and not ready for critism are being used an an excuse to delete the name rather than the concept - If the content is bad but an article is possible the default should not be delete but "make stub".
  9. Don't create articles on main pages I would suggest that by default a new article is created in a users namespace rather than on the main board. If you aren't able to transfer an article, then it will probably be ripped to pieces anyway!
  10. UnderConstruction Articles under development in the main space should have an "under development" status. Indeed, why not create an "under development" space which is not searched by the search engines and therefore effectively hidden from the public.
  11. THE FIRST STAGE OF AFD The first stage of AfD should be to request an improvement (unless it clearly breaches guidelines). Perhaps the discussion should focus on the areas that need improvement and when the vote is that it does need improvement (but delete would also be possible), it would then move to a construction area (renamed deletion area!), then given perhaps a few weeks to improve - after which it would be automatically deleted.
  12. Quality control Once an article has gone to the construction area, it would have to be submitted to a quality review before placing back on the main pages. The review would only focus on whether it is suitable for public display (ie does not break any guidelines), minor edits and improvement would not be a critieria to refuse re-instatement.

[edit] New Template

  1. New page template I have constructed a template to create a default page. I would like to see all newcomers being offered this as a way to start their project.
========================
  1. =======AfD notice=======
========================
<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="afd" style="margin: 0 5%; padding:
 0 7px 0px 7px; background: #EDF1F1; border: 1px solid #999999; text-align: left; font-
size:95%;"><div>'''This article needs improvement and may be deleted in accordance with 
Wikipedia's [[ Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion policy ]][[Template:Afd|.]]'''<br />

Please share your thoughts on the matter at '''[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{1|{{{1}}}}}}
|this article's entry]]''' on the Articles for deletion page.<br />
Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be
removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving
the article during the discussion, read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to deletion|guide to deletion]].<br/>
---- 
<snip>
for someone still working out how to make text bold, to be welcomed by a huge load of rubbish put at the beginning of their article is shere Madness! I think I have proven to myself that this is not necessary. I have created two templates to replace the AfD. Unfortunately, if I test them I'll probably get banned (please don't ban me!) so although they appear to do the same as AfD I'm not certain. The new "junk" a newuser will see is:
<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled -->
{{UfDM|Haseler/Test1|http://en.wikipedia.org|2006|October|27}}
<!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point -->
Which I hope everyone can agree is an order of magnitude better. The templates are:
sub Afd=>{ {subst:AfDU} }    
newuser start = { {subst:NA} }      advanced = { {subst:NA|0} } (no clutter)

There is little documentation, but it ought to be obvious! --Mike 10:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)