WikiProject report
Article Rescue Squadron
This week, we jumped into one of the most important WikiProjects of them all, the Article Rescue Squadron. The WikiProject has an uncountable number of articles that have been saved from AfD. This week, we spoke with Dream Focus and Green Cardamom to learn more about what they do and how they do it.
- What motivated you to join the squadron? Are there any articles that you have recently "saved"?
- Dream Focus: I was there when everything changed, when massive numbers of Wikipedia articles were being mass deleted on a whim, and decided to try to help save some by following WP:BEFORE and looking for evidence of notability instead of just mindlessly spamming the word "delete" everywhere, as many often did back then. For the first years of Wikipedia you didn't need any references in the article, and then suddenly someone slipped in that requirement and then later on started enforcing it, more often than not refusing to do even a quick Google News Archive search to see if reliable sources even existed.
- Green Cardamom: I've been active in AfD for about 2 years and over time noticed how much skill, time and resources are required when researching the notability of articles, not just Google but commercial databases and foreign language sources, plus an understanding of the nuanced notability rules. It is a constant learning experience, challenging and often humbling, but ultimately saving an article from deletion is highly rewarding.
- Do you add articles to be saved on the content rescue list?
- Dream Focus: Sometimes. Mostly I just see what others have found.
- Green Cardamom: Occasionally.
- What makes this project so different than TAFI [Today's Article For Improvement]?
- Dream Focus: It was created long before them. We save articles that are about to be deleted.
- Green Cardamom: ARS is a first responder for the patient. Field medics, so it will live to see another day. With AfD there is a short window to save an article.
- Do you follow the checklist when you "save" articles?
- Dream Focus: You do what needs to be done.
- How do you find articles that are worthy of "saving"?
- Dream Focus: Whatever anyone stumbles upon that they believe has potential, they mention on the list, and others help find reliable sources if they exist.
- Green Cardamom: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting is probably the best place for finding AfD cases (another little known and unheralded project). See the Compact view, "Arts", "Topical" and "People" sections for example.
- What are the squadron's most pressing needs? How can a new contributor help today?
- Dream Focus: Look over things up for deletion, and just pick something to check for sources for.
- Green Cardamom: There are more articles being deleted than fairly should be.
- Is there anything else you'd link to add?
- Dream Focus: If people just followed WP:BEFORE, then a lot of articles wouldn't go through the needless AFD process.
- Green Cardamom: Deletion serves a purpose and is needed but the process of determining that fairly is like freedom something not to take lightly. We can't forget there are real people on the other side of a deleted article (creators and subjects), with every unfair deletion - improper due diligence and misapplication of the rules - it erodes the project materially and the spirit of an egalitarian place.
Next week, we'll read about bugs from a Russian WikiProject. Also, if you have any suggestions for good WikiProjects, give us a piece of your mind at the WikiProject desk. Until then, check out the archive!
5 March 2014 (all comments)
Traffic report
Discussion report
News and notes
Featured content
WikiProject report
Discuss this story
@Dream Focus: @Green Cardamom: I wonder if I can get You to answer these questions:
- In your experience what type of articles are more likely to be nominated for deletion?
- The ones that someone hates enough to go around looking for similar articles of that type. Some also check on the article's number of views watchers, going after those that have the least number of people to notice first. Dream Focus 15:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In general, living person articles and recent topics are much more commonly nominated for deletion than historical articles. I don't think we as a culture are very good at predicting future notability for recent stuff so they tend to be more controversial. I try to err on the side of inclusion when things are unclear for newer stuff. However older stuff it's easier because time is the greatest judge. -- GreenC 04:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you ever noticed articles nominated for deletion as a form of censorship?
- Yeah. Look at Israel Palestine articles for an example of that. Go talk to those Wikiprojects and they'll find you some examples of obviously bias single person accounts making statements in the AFD that show their political viewpoint. Dream Focus 15:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Censorship is a controversial word, but I have seen certain editors in AfD who are topic-focused, for example against alternative health care, or paranormal, or MLM companies. It's needed I guess but systematic targeting is also a fine line as it can easily tip over into doing more harm than good. -- GreenC 04:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Where can interested editors find statistics about the number of articles nominated for deletion/% deleted/% kept etc over the years?
- Ask on the main ARS talk page. People have posted links to that information at times. Dream Focus 15:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD statistics information for any individual editor can be seen using the AFD Statistic Tool. One thing that I found very helpful was knowledge that when an editor is voting the wrong way more than about 60% to 70% of the time over an extended period of time (as seen with the tool), it can be grounds to ask an administrator to investigate. Also anyone doing better than 60% or 70% correct !votes over an extended period is probably doing better than average. (It's not a zero sum equation since everyone can be right if everyone !votes the same way). -- GreenC 04:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the project collaborate with other related projects, such as wp:editor retention?
- People edit on their own as they see fit. I used to patrol new pages at times and help new articles by finding references for them. Dream Focus 15:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why was this project itself a candidate for deletion?
- Some were upset they had attention being brought to articles they could've deleted if fewer people noticed and showed up to comment. Dream Focus 15:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe they were jealous there is no "Article Deletion Squadron", but that would go against the editing policy of WP:PRESERVE. -- GreenC 04:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you ever considered expanding to save other wiki-content such as templates, categories, etc?
- Did that at times. Whatever people ask for help with. Dream Focus 15:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I'd like to see more Fair Use content disputes brought up, in particular when blocks of cited text are deleted from articles on copyright grounds. This often seems to go unnoticed and uncontested. -- GreenC 04:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]