Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment working group

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment working group

WP:5 Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. All text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be distributed or linked accordingly. Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual exclusively controls any specific article; this project limited discussion to Wikiproject co-ordinators only, which clearly is a violation of the GNU license, along with WP:OWN. Such a project is not within the spirit of the community. -- Gnangarra 14:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

precendent on closing such projects is at Wikipedia:Esperanza which says This essay serves as a warning to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical lest they are to meet a fate similar to Esperanza's Gnangarra 15:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Project is new and current wording is horrendous; could it please be discussed more on the talk page? -Drilnoth (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm... Strong keep? This was created only a few days ago and hasn't really gotten going. There's even still talk page discussion about the appropriateness of it, so it seems a little premature to go to MFD. Although targeted at "co-ordinators," under the assumption that they are in touch with most of their project, the goal of this page is to be open to everyone... we just want a "stable list" of coordinators to be able to contact whenever there's a new discussion; everyone's invited to join and all opinions will be weighed equally. I also don't understand your point about the GNU, which I don't believe has any clause about any perceived "hierarchy". Also, WP:OWN applies to article ownership... this is in no way intended to apply to article ownership or WikiProject ownership. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. From the discussion on the talk page, it seems clear to me that the working group is open to any interest editor, but that group organizers wanted to make sure that as many WikiProjects as possible had some representation. cmadler (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

from this and duplicated by Shepbots 500+ edits All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. is not an open invitation but specifying that only certain editors may participate in the discussion. Gnangarra 15:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Additionally, [1] the editors who participate here—whether coordinators or random passerby—must take responsibility for acting as liaisons between the central discussion and the WikiProjects they represent. This sounds like imposing a mandatory hierarchy to me. Orderinchaos 05:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Comment: That is a problem with the current wording which needs to be fixed; this page is new enough that it is still just a skeleton of what it should be. Excluding non-"coordinators" was never an intention. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. There's already been a lot of discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Assessment working group on this issue, and several concerns raised by a number of editors. For the time being, we have managed to drag the page from being a "Coordinators' working group" discussing all aspects of WikiProjects to an "Assessment working group" of "interested editors" focussed on the question of article assessment. For that reason I think the current deletion discussion is premature. After all, are we going to delete Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board just because whinging poms get a hard time on that page? Actually, it probably should be merged into WT:AUSTRALIA on the Esperanza precedent, but I'll leave that for someone else to do. Physchim62 (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: The page really needs to be move protected, I think. The rename had no consensus one way or the other yet, and it has been moved three times in the last 12 or so hours. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment Well if it goes back to being a "Coordinators' working group", my !vote is Delete as I've made very clear. All the time it has a clear focus on assessment and open procedures, my !vote is Keep. Physchim62 (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment: In truth, I think that the original name was wrong. However, I think that the new name isn't right, either. Perhaps a "WikiProject Collaboration group" would be a better and more descriptive name, indicating a better allowance for everyone to join rather than just "co-ordinators"? -Drilnoth (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Comment what ever its called is irrelevent when the invite to participate and the project itself specifies only Project co-ordinators. Gnangarra 15:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Comment: That is a problem with the current wording of the page, not with the page's goal. On the IRC discussion which lead to this page being created, it wasn't the intention to exclude non-coordinators. I would change the page now to better describe the project's openness and scope, but I'm not sure if such a drastic change should be made during an MFD. Let me know if you'd like me to try a rewrite and add extensive clarification. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
            • Comment: I have rewritten the page with some other notes. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - the deletion reasons are invalid. GFDL does not require that everyone can edit the original page, but that anyone can copy and use the content later. The original pages can be protected and restricted. We just cannot keep them from being duplicated elsewhere. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep, in concurrence with Drilnoth's assessment. The idea, as I understand it, is to help WikiProject Coordinators maintain a consistent approach to assessments in their respective projects. Thus, as the Editorial Team and WikiProject Council consider changes, the WikiProject Coordinators can be informed and allowed to provide feedback. hornoir (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think that the goal is to coordinate some non-assessment related stuff, also. There has been a lot of discussion on the talk page about this, and the page has been moved multiple times between the current name ("assessment working group") and "Coordinators working group", neither of which is actually accurate, now that I think about it. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
    • These sort of comments SERIOUSLY worry me. A "WikiProject Coordinator"? It's politics we don't need in content space. Orderinchaos 05:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I won't vote at this point as things are still being discussed and are not finalised. However, I note that it is foolishly premature to bring this to MFD when things are still being discussed indefinitely (i.e. there is no date for when things are going to happen as far as I know, and furthermore, the nominator made no attempts to discuss this with others; I might go so far as characterising this as a disruptive abuse of process). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

cresponse I'm not an editor within the invited group like most of the editors on WP so its wholely appropriate to bring this discussion to where the wider community is free to participate. Gnangarra 15:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You could have discussed it on the talk page. There was still active discussion there from editors both for and against it. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if one applies the doctrine of good faith (i.e. WP:AGF), it may just so happen you're either mistaken about something or are not fully informed. There was nothing preventing editors from using the talk page; if you made an effort to look at it, multiple editors (coordinators or non-coordinators) have used it whether they were invited or not. But for argument's sake, even accepting that as a reason, there was nothing preventing you from asking Shep (the bot-owner himself) about the details (eg; how this came about, who participated, why it was worded in the way it was, and whether (most importantly) it was intentionally worded that way). Instead, you assumed your interpretation was universal: you needed to be satisfied before this had a chance of working, and by insisting the wider community wastes its time on this step when it didn't need to. Sorry, but this nom is being called out for what it is - plainly unhelpful. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

response And this is what? due to EC Its a valid discussion open to the whole community it doesnt matter how old a page is any page can be brought to a deletion discussion and the person nominating doesnt need to ask permission first. Gnangarra 15:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't change the point: this isn't a matter of permission - this is a matter of basic courtesy that any person can expect, whether it's on or off Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm changing the point? you said I should have used the talk page of the project, I'm saying that the spammed invite didnt included most editors of Wikipedia(myself included) as a matter of fact it specified that editors with only a certain status within a project were able to comment. Deletion discussion are to discuss the deletion of pages that dont meet the policies as written by the Community, MFD doesnt not say that discussion must first take place on the talk page, it does say that one should consider notifying the main contributors of the discussion but as this was spammed into 500+ plus articles it would require similar notification.
I see that some changes have taken place in response to this MFD to open up the page to other editors Gnangarra 16:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment. The changes came about before the page was nominated for deletion, as a result of concerns raised on the talk page. That's why I still think this deletion discussion is premature. Did you read the talk page before nominating? Physchim62 (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Those changes were set to take place regardless of this MFD; which is again, why I consider it a disruptive pointy abuse of process - this was being discussed in more than one venue; the fact you chose MFD speaks volumes. You're evading the bulk of my comment; your clear failure to communicate at all, including on the page of the user who sent the invite. Policies are not just words or rules of law that are followed without applying what people often refer to as "common sense", even on policy pages themselves. Your nom is frivolous, and quite frankly, I'm done trying to make you understand how poor your judgement was here - I'll leave it to someone else. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I answered your comment anyone may bring any page to the appropriate deletion discussion page its neither pointy nor an abuse of process Gnangarra 16:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that clearly when one is not invited by a bot, one may look elsewhere where their voice is welcome. MFD is open to all. And Gnangarra indeed has a point: the invitation itself did not appear to invite him/her to discussing the project on its project page. Yes, it's been changed now, but it was a cold exclusive little turn off when I first read it. That was the real poor judgment. Oh, Gnangarra, you don't have to do anything other than talk to other members to be a member of WP:Plants--signing up or officially joining is no requirement of the process. --KP Botany (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as apparently altered from original intent, though I likely would not have seen an overriding reason to delete even then. Collect (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I am not convinced the project is, at this point, clear enough about what it wants to achieve, but I can see no reason to prevent it from having the chance to evolve into something useful. From what I've seen those involved have taken on board the comments about the need for inclusion and are moving in the right direction. If it starts going the other way then there would be reason for concern. Ben MacDui 17:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

*Snow Keep Many editors have already agreed to participate in a process already underway. This is a clear Keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• • What proportion of WikiProjects are represented? What proportion of active WikiProjects are represented? Glancing at the list I see projects with as few as a couple thousand articles, or even just 64. Sure a couple of the major ones are represented, but if it's meant to do anything other than create new bureaucracy for the rest of use to ignore, shouldn't it represent most of the major projects? Guettarda (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The project is only a few days old, and many projects were notified of it only yesterday. Give it some time for more projects to sign on. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - we don't need new pseudo-bureaucracy, and establishing a group dedicated to herding cats seems counterproductive to say the least. Guettarda (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Snowball keep. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Snowball delete The project is based upon something that isn't Wikipedia: that we're all being herded around by our leaders. I edit for my own enjoyment. --KP Botany (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • And you will continue to be able to do so. I've recently made revisions to this page clarifying who can participate (everyone). The "coordinator" system is used just as a means to have a list of people to contact when a new discussion starts, to try and ensure that most every project has at least one involved user. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry... to answer your question about being "herded around by our leaders" more specifically, that shouldn't be the case at all. This project's goal is more to help WikiProjects which need it (by taskforcifying them into larger projects), and deal with things which will affect all WikiProjects anyway, such as changes to the assessment scheme. Even if this project is active, individual projects can choose to ignore it altogether (unless there is overwhelming community consensus for a change, which could happen even without this group), and individual people within projects don't have to participate. This project should also be able to help collaborations between projects get started (which are entirely voluntary), and there shouldn't be much of any effect on article editing. "Co-ordinators" was a bad term to choose when this project was created, I'll agree with that, but establishing a group of leaders isn't the project's intention. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• CommentYet it still seems to be the intention. Ah, I found a part of the quote above, "All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well." What exactly do you even mean by coordinators? The "leaders?" It's a problem because it's all so confusing that you seem to want project leaders, but are aghast that you called for them. --KP Botany (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• That is from an old revision of the page, and is no longer present on the current page. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, that's correct. I couldn't even find it, except in the quote above, in the historical versions. However, it was an unfortunate turn-off. Maybe regrouping in user space, identifying your goal well, and reconsidering bot invites and who you really want to participate might be useful at this point. --KP Botany (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• It was a poor choice of words and has been corrected... I don't think that that kind of limitation was ever the actual intent of the authors, and it was just not properly explained. I believe that the current version is what the project page (or something like it) should look like when all is said and done... would you support an effort such as this with the current description, disregarding previous errors? -Drilnoth (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• No. The working group should simply contact projects or post a notice on the community portal about discussions that could impact them, not project "coordinators/leaders/bosses." Many Wikiprojects work fine without artificial bureaucracies added for any purpose whatsoever. --KP Botany (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Keep That group has right now the wrong name and the wrong definition but that doesn't mean its objective is wrong. Granted, it is fundamental that Wikipedia remains decentralized. However that also makes big changes and overhauls more difficult. The class A discussion started here Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment and it was soon obvious that we were too few and not representative enough to finalize the proposed solutions and to make them works. Once this workgroup has fulfilled its purposes, it should disband. --KrebMarkt 18:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - before it wastes anymore time. Spamming the projects with this page was disruptive, it is vague and malformed. The notion of coordinators, 'interested users', or whatever weasel term emerges, is an apple of discord. The present page cannot evolve into anything useful, a new page can be created if there is another solution to the stated goals. cygnis insignis 19:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and reject later. At the moment, there isn't any stable version of this page to object to on content grounds, which makes deletion problematic. At the same time, it's a sure bet that any output of this effort will be rejected by the community, regardless of whether the effort is "open" or "closed". Given the problems this page is experiencing now, best wait to take care of it. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep You made you point, now bugger off (American English). Some users didn't like the name and sent the entire effort to Mfd. Really? §hep^Talk 20:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Please refrain from this sort of incivility and misrepresentation. Guettarda (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Incivility? "Go away." Is the exact meaning I was putting behind the phrase. §hep^Talk 02:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• DeleteSome projects use diffrent systems. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox
• Speedy Close This MfD and let this project figure out for sure what it is and how it is supposed to work. If there are still problems it can be re-nominated. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Close per Beeblebrox. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Close - I understand what the gist of what this WP is about. So what if they don't have all the details hammered out? Let them be and figure it out. MfDs have no statute of limitations - so nominate it again later on if nothing comes of this WP, but at least give it a chance for the WP to settle down. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 22:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• The project is well intended, but rather muddled at the moment. It initially looked to me like this was a working group set up to discuss assessment. The invitation and project page were perhaps poorly worded, giving rise to some confusion and ill-feeling, however the aim - to discuss assessment - was interesting. It is now starting to emerge that the aims of the project are not to discuss assessment, but to set up a group similar to the aims of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council, and that assessment is to be one of a number of items to discuss. I'm not convinced of the wisdom of having two projects with the same aims running side by side. If this is to be a working project of the Council tasked with looking at assessment, then I would say "keep"; if this is to be a rival to the Council, then I would say "delete", and recommend the creators of the project attach their energy and enthusiasm to the existing experience of the Council project to drive that project forward. That this project has started badly doesn't bode well for the future, and it may well be better all round if this MfD was closed; the project tagged {{Historical}}; and a fresh start made. In collaboration with the Council and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, a working party on assessment could be created. Notifications could be sent to projects (not co-ordinators of projects - projects and individuals enjoy being allowed to respond as they see fit), and a message put on {{cent}} to attract attention. SilkTork *^YES! 01:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • In the tradition of Assume Good Faith, please give the the editors working on this project some amount of time. If after a period of time, there is a consensus to delete, then the outcome would be clear. Until then, editors should allow for this project to at least define itself - this might take a few days - and give it a chance. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
    • This is a collaboration between WP 1.0 and the Council. Having it as a subpage of the WikiProject Council seems to imply a workgroup of the council devoted to a small handful of tasks; if it was a rival why would it be a subpage? §hep^Talk 02:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Agreed with nom - promotes a hierarchical view of Wikipedia which is contrary to Wikipedia's basic tenets (see also WP:SOP). They are already under threat from way too many sources. We're enough of a laughing stock in the media as it is without having a non-elected government to decide content issues, which is basically what this will become. Orderinchaos 05:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Although instead of being focused on "co-ordinators" from projects, maybe it should be a "representative" or few from each wikiproject.