Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
The contents of the Wikipedia:Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid page were merged into Wikipedia:Follow the leader on 26 February 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
As I have participated in quite a number of AfD discussions, I have found for there to be a trend. The first editor to give their opinion on the outcome of the discussion, or in many cases, the nom, seems to have a lot of weight in influencing others who comment later, who may otherwise not have the same views.
The result can often be unfair, as the appropriate action by existing Wikipedia guidelines seemingly should logically be something very different than what actually happens due to the heavy influence. These early comments very frequently lead to numerous others just like it, thereby becoming the result.
In many cases, there is one "keep" and 10 "deletes." While that single "keep" has often made very good points, which, standing alone, should be basis for keeping the page, other editors, and ultimately, the closing administrator see the numerous deletes, and make their judgment based on that.
This is also unfair to those who have created or made major contributions to that page, but have not learned of its proposal for deletion until long after others have gotten their dibs first. Wikipedia is not and does not have an instant messaging service. All editors are purely volunteers. Few editors log in hourly and check their watchlist that frequently. Many editors do not even check daily. By the time such a contributor has gotten the news, many other identical and similar comments have already been made.
Many of those who comment regularly on AfDs are not those truly interested an the actual topic, but those who make frequent topics on a variety of AfDs, either because they have a personal interest in doing so, or because they are building their resume toward becoming an administrator. The result can be a skewed view of what concensus among those who have an interest or are otherwise familiar with that topic really is, and ultimately, a different outcome than what the true experts believe. Sebwite ( talk) 22:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Giving occasional editors a chance to comment on an AfD wasn't the only reason for the 2009 extension of typical AfD lengths. Another goal was to get people to stop whining about closures that were hours (or even a few minutes) less than the "statutory" five days (which was being understood as "sixty hours, and not one fraction of a minute less, no matter how perfectly obvious the consensus is"). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 14:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I've created an essay on Gutting an article during deletion discussion.
You may find it interesting reading at: User:Cirt/Gutting.
Cheers,
— Cirt ( talk) 18:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 20:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Follow the leader →
User:Sebwite/Follow the leader – On 4 July 2008,
Sebwite created
Wikipedia:Follow the leader as a proposed Wikipedia deletion policy (which was summarily rejected
above). More than 10 years later, the article has in no way developed past Sebwite's initial contributions.
[1] This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it has numerous contradictions with established Wikipedia consensus which can be... problematic to say the least. For example, it makes a few suggestions that the creator and main contributors of an article are really the ones who can best make a judgment [about its deletion].
Even more odd are phrases like: Therefore, editors who participate in an AfD discussion should not be swayed by how others have commented,
which is just... yeah. I get it, right. Sebwite is really making a nuanced point here about
WP:!VOTE and
WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, but it just comes across as encouraging
WP:IDHT.
Per
WP:Essays, Essays that... are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the
user namespace.
This is the case for
WP:Template the regulars, and I feel it is a fine solution to
userfy this article. –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖ 01:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I propose to merge WP:Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid with WP:Follow the leader. These two essays are making pretty much the exact same point about it being okay to be in the minority rather than just going by what others have said before; the only difference is the metaphor chosen. We can combine them and still keep both metaphors, and it'll reduce the forking/duplication problem we have in WP-space. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 21:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
The contents of the Wikipedia:Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid page were merged into Wikipedia:Follow the leader on 26 February 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
As I have participated in quite a number of AfD discussions, I have found for there to be a trend. The first editor to give their opinion on the outcome of the discussion, or in many cases, the nom, seems to have a lot of weight in influencing others who comment later, who may otherwise not have the same views.
The result can often be unfair, as the appropriate action by existing Wikipedia guidelines seemingly should logically be something very different than what actually happens due to the heavy influence. These early comments very frequently lead to numerous others just like it, thereby becoming the result.
In many cases, there is one "keep" and 10 "deletes." While that single "keep" has often made very good points, which, standing alone, should be basis for keeping the page, other editors, and ultimately, the closing administrator see the numerous deletes, and make their judgment based on that.
This is also unfair to those who have created or made major contributions to that page, but have not learned of its proposal for deletion until long after others have gotten their dibs first. Wikipedia is not and does not have an instant messaging service. All editors are purely volunteers. Few editors log in hourly and check their watchlist that frequently. Many editors do not even check daily. By the time such a contributor has gotten the news, many other identical and similar comments have already been made.
Many of those who comment regularly on AfDs are not those truly interested an the actual topic, but those who make frequent topics on a variety of AfDs, either because they have a personal interest in doing so, or because they are building their resume toward becoming an administrator. The result can be a skewed view of what concensus among those who have an interest or are otherwise familiar with that topic really is, and ultimately, a different outcome than what the true experts believe. Sebwite ( talk) 22:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Giving occasional editors a chance to comment on an AfD wasn't the only reason for the 2009 extension of typical AfD lengths. Another goal was to get people to stop whining about closures that were hours (or even a few minutes) less than the "statutory" five days (which was being understood as "sixty hours, and not one fraction of a minute less, no matter how perfectly obvious the consensus is"). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 14:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I've created an essay on Gutting an article during deletion discussion.
You may find it interesting reading at: User:Cirt/Gutting.
Cheers,
— Cirt ( talk) 18:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 20:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Follow the leader →
User:Sebwite/Follow the leader – On 4 July 2008,
Sebwite created
Wikipedia:Follow the leader as a proposed Wikipedia deletion policy (which was summarily rejected
above). More than 10 years later, the article has in no way developed past Sebwite's initial contributions.
[1] This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it has numerous contradictions with established Wikipedia consensus which can be... problematic to say the least. For example, it makes a few suggestions that the creator and main contributors of an article are really the ones who can best make a judgment [about its deletion].
Even more odd are phrases like: Therefore, editors who participate in an AfD discussion should not be swayed by how others have commented,
which is just... yeah. I get it, right. Sebwite is really making a nuanced point here about
WP:!VOTE and
WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, but it just comes across as encouraging
WP:IDHT.
Per
WP:Essays, Essays that... are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the
user namespace.
This is the case for
WP:Template the regulars, and I feel it is a fine solution to
userfy this article. –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖ 01:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I propose to merge WP:Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid with WP:Follow the leader. These two essays are making pretty much the exact same point about it being okay to be in the minority rather than just going by what others have said before; the only difference is the metaphor chosen. We can combine them and still keep both metaphors, and it'll reduce the forking/duplication problem we have in WP-space. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 21:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)