I think there should be an app where you can vote on articles that have been nominated for deletion easily. When you open the app, it should show you the article, then you vote, “Should this article be deleted for the following reasons?” Then you click Yes or No, and if you want, give details. Just a suggestion, I think it would be cool.
Any thoughts?
IamSH
2
It’s a very good idea. If this is possible, then it can help to review more article in smallest amount of time.
VC
3
The idea is good, but unfortunately, I’d have to say I’m against it. The last thing we want is people starting to vote on articles without actually reading them just to have higher contribution counts, or to get back at an admin for deleting their genius article on creating a nuclear bump out of children diapers. The deletion policy is a delicate matter. By, the way, I’m not saying that this is what is happening with other applications, not even implying it. However, in the occasional case when someone creates an account, starts the patrolling app, and starts marking every edit as patrolled, or reverting every edit, usually someone catches up and deals with the situation. Categorizing is the same and every other application that exists so far. However, if someone gets into the “NFD voting app” and starts supporting or opposing deletion on each article they encounter for some reason, it would be very hard to catch it. Also, it would really be harder to deal with once it is noticed (voting is done on discussion pages, and those have high rate of edits, so rolling back every edit by the account won’t always be an option). Having it limited for a certain group of editors will create some debate and I’m not really with it. Also, it’s easy to take a look at the Nominations for Deletion
category and go to a specific sub-category and here we go!
How about the app will leave a message on the discussion page based on your decission.
You’re right. *Sigh* A lot of people will probably abuse it. I was going to think that the app should be just for Admins, New article boosters, and some active editors that gave been given permission from Admins, but that will most likely cause debate. :\ Not to mention it will be harder to count up all the votes. How can we stop debate and make an easier way to count up all the votes? I do not know.
Oliver
6
Well, another issue is that articles aren’t deleted based purely on numbers of votes. Votes help with consensus, but one vote with a compelling argument can overturn several others clamoring for the opposite thing. The deletion policy really is delicate.
system
7
When reviewing articles nominated for deletion, I do take it upon myself to overwrite someone’s vote. It’s typically the creator themselves opposing deletion - and that may be the only vote/comment on the discussion page. But if I look in the history and see a long time editor has placed the NFD there, I pretty much know that it’s been placed for a valid reason.
system
8
IMHO, it shouldn’t be a yes or no thing. If someone has an opinion on the article, they should state it and then give a good reason WHY they agree or disagree with the NFD, so every vote has more reasoning behind it. Samantha, your idea would definetley make things quicker and easier, but I say we go for accuracy.
IamSH
9
Cece is right. This can be done without any issue. Just state your reason and then click yes or no.
I think having this would be easier than searching “nfd duplicates”, and then go article by article, by article. That’s annoying and sometimes you forget which articles you already voted on. How about, like I said earliet, it leaves a comment on the discussion page, instead of the app making the final call. This would be better.
While I don’t necessarily think an app is the right solution to this problem, I have another suggestion. Could this be added to the Community Dashboard somehow (assuming that the Community Dashboard will be kept)? Even if we just did the NFD’ed articles with empty discussion pages, I think this would be a big help in terms of getting people to vote. And if people vote and don’t know NFD policy, we can just coach them.
^^^^^ Good idea. I think we should also encourage active editors to vote on NFD articles.
Not a bad idea. Often, I see articles that have had NFD tags for months but have not been voted on. An app might help to clear out some unwanted articles, but as @VC
said, some people might take advantage of it. The idea of reserving the app for admins, NABers, and other long-time editors might help.
^ I agree. Some articles have been tagged for years and haven’t been looked upon since. I think the best solution is that admins and NABers should be the ones that use the app.
system
15
@SilverSparkz
You’ve come across articles that have been sitting with an NFD tag for years? Where?
I think this is a good idea too. For many years now we haven’t had enough community input on NFD decisions. And admins are frequently unable to keep up with the NFD backlog since making a decision without community input can be hard. I just looked in the NFD backlog and saw one NFD tag from September! The site would benefit from a quicker and more reliable deletion process. Yes there are are some potential dangers of a NFD app. So the app would need to be designed carefully and tested gingerly to see if it worked the way we all hope. I do think it would be possible to build a good one though.
@Krystle
I looked over the NFD’s and it seems that the oldest ones got deleted.
VC
18
If the dangers and/or problems can be taken care of, I’d certainly come to the other side! (jk). Really, it would be great.
Caidoz
19
I think this would end up just getting lots of people just saying yes or no. When reviewing an article for deletion, well thought out reasons for or against are very valuable. An unexplained “delete” or “keep” is far less useful in helping to make a decision about whether or not the article should be kept. If we did this, how would we make sure people voted on it properly and discussed it, rather than blindly voting yes or no based on whether or not they like the topic, in order to get as many edits as possible to their name.
Yeah, that’s the problem. That’s why I think the tool would be good, provided that only a select group had the rights. It would probably go under patrols rather than edits, I think.
