WikiEducator talk:Policy for page deletions
Admin Workgroup Meeting (Asynchronous), Second Session, from 0001 UTC on 5 August 2009 to 2400 UTC on 7 September 2009
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Improving the content||0||16:28, 20 August 2009|
|Deletion||6||08:32, 15 August 2009|
|Do both Sysop Admins and Bureaucrats delete pages?||0||08:10, 15 August 2009|
|Deletion Policy from Wikipedia||2||18:44, 10 August 2009|
|Meeting; Second session||0||06:29, 5 August 2009|
In my view, instead of deleting the page or the content, we should first try to amend the content. May be, just by editing we can make the content non-offensive. Till the time contents are improved, the administrators can hide the page and make it viewable only to the person who is given charge for editing that page.
--Sarita Kumar 03:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Last edit: 18:26, 26 July 2009
I have given a little (very little) thought to deletion and I started a deletion system here that many are using. Reasons for deletion have been user driven. I suspect that the non user-driven will require more thought. What shall we deem offensive for example?
Anyway, I copied the simple criteria over from the previous page.
dmccabe 14:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thanks. I have just added a few tweeks here and there. I hope they make some sence reading
Anil Prasad 17:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
This page: Zogre_Flesh_Eaters and others by this user might serve to illustrate some of the deletion decisions we may face. The pages in question on the one hand probably do not violate copyright, would not tend to cause offense, but on the other hand are most unlikely to interest educators. On yet another hand this may be a creative teacher using a game in some educational way that is not obvious to me.
- Should the pages be deleted?
- Could we redirect the user to a more suitable wiki?
- What is the best way to involve the user in the decision?
It strikes me that we might like user input, but simply making that request might push the user to a different potentially more suitable site, at which point we would be left with orphan pages and no further user input. Perhaps I'm over thinking?
I've been watching the development of the ruinscape tutorials. Fascinating.
Thinking candidly about this instance -- I think informal educational learning materials are legitimate educational content. I think we may be treading dangerous ground when we exercise value judgements on what is legitimate learning and what's not. Obviously we will develop guidelines/policies on acceptable content, for example we will not permit offensive materials, corporate advertising etc.
I think the best way to address this issue is implementing a more robust metadata system where we categorise content more clearly for example -- informal learning materials, formal curriculum content etc. Speaking personally -- I don't have a problem with the Runescape tutorials -- as long as the content is properly referenced as "informal" learning and that the authors adhere to our values, style guidelines etc.
We're currently working with the Ministry of Education here in New Zealand to develop a metadata framework and implementation for wikieducator. This will more than likely extend and improve the work and early thinking on the Content info box
I think we also need to do a little more work on the deletion template to incorporate the reason for deletion and links to our relevant policies as they're developed by this workgroup.
Good post Declan -- thanks.
I had not encountered any of this material before. It strikes me as being similar to the D&D game that folks played on paper (and I assume they still play it online somewhere). I agree about the value judgments. Someone's working hard on this stuff. For that reason I think we need very few and very clear reasons to delete. I don't perceive that we will run out of bandwidth and memory. Tidiness is a non issue because folks link things in ways that provide whatever structure is needed, and that includes no structure as suites.
I think we will end up with some material that may be very informal mixed with material that will be quite structured. I can picture youth groups for example using WE as a platform for organizing learning materials (I'm thinking merit badges or first aid lessons and the like).
I would advocate for very strict criteria for administration-driven deletion. I think user-driven deletions could be simplified to facilitate deletion of misplaced sand-box experiments etc. People need time to play and make mistakes in the knowledge that they can request a deletion.
The following sentence in the introduction suggests that both of these administrators can delete pages:
"The deletion of pages in the wiki is a technical activity performed by volunteer Sysop Administrators, Bureaucrats which removes the page...."
I suggest that only one administrator role be permitted to delete pages. It seems like that role is Sysop.
Just my 2cents.
Please also see the following deletion policies from Wikipedia.
We will have the Coffee time for five days from 05/08/2009 for this session of our meeting also. During the coffee time, feel free to copy the sections from below to our policy development work area above and make changes wherever necessary.
- Attack pages
- A Wikipedia article, page, category, redirect or image that exists primarily to disparage its subject is an "attack page". These pages are subject to being deleted by any administrator at any time.
- Category deletion policy
- Deleting categories follows roughly the same process as articles, except that it is described on a different page. Categories that do not conform to naming conventions can be "speedily renamed".
- Criteria for speedy deletion
- Articles, images, categories etc. may be "speedily deleted" if they clearly fall within certain categories, which generally boil down to pages lacking content, or disruptive pages. Anything potentially controversial should go through the deletion process instead.
- Deletion policy
- Deleting articles requires an administrator and generally follows a consensus-forming process. Most potentially controversial deletions require a three-step process and a waiting period of a week.
- Office actions
- The Wikimedia Foundation office reserves the right to speedily delete an article temporarily in cases of exceptional controversy.
- Page revisions can be deleted for legal reasons.
- Proposed deletion
- As a shortcut around the Articles for Deletion ("AfD") process, for uncontroversial deletions an article can be proposed for deletion, though once only. If no one contests the proposed deletion within seven days, an administrator may delete the article.
Anil Prasad 15:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Anil, thanks for bring this wealth of material from Wikipedia; always better to avoid wheel reinvention!
Regarding proposed deletion: I think this could be problematic. Taking my own example, if you proposed deleting one of my pages, in many circumstances I would not be back within seven days and would wonder what happened to my page. I think this part of Wikipedia's model works because there are many more eyes watching each page. On the positive side, I don't imagine that there will be an active army of Weducators proposing deletion, and those that do will have observed the other criteria before proposing deletion.
You are right. Since WikiEducator is an online collaborative OER development platform mostly used by recognized Academicians/Educators/Academic Institutions, let us expect only rare requirements of deletion. Therefore we may add a general deletion policy statement in the beginning. I have just attempted a draft that you may like to see.
Anil Prasad 05:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear friends, Thus the WE Admin Group has approved its charter ( Workgroup:WikiEducator_Administrators#Vote_for_the_Charter) . Now it is the time for the important part of our business ; developing following policies and guidelines for WE Administrator/Sysop users.
As hard jobs are ahead, instead of Coffee time, we may start with a breakfast time for five days from 05/08/2009. Our breakfast menu is splendid as seen above <smile>. Our strategy during the breakfast time will be copying relevant open licensed content to the respective policy/guideline pages and freehand editing. No signature would be requiring as in the coffee time. Members can also opt to furnish suggestions or start discussion threads on the corresponding TALK pages.
Our tentative plan for the second session is:
- After the breakfast we will hold three days discussions on each item starting from selection of admin and ending at guidelines for protecting pages.
- From 28/08/2009 to 31/08/2009 we will give time for feedback from the WE community.
- From 01/09/2009 to 04/09/2009 we will vote each item.
- On 05/09/2009 & 06/09/2009 we will write the report and
- On 07/09/2009 we will submit the same to WCC.
Another item of common interest to all the Workgroups – the Consensus policy – is also included in our group navigation template for promoting the idea ( http://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Consensus ). It is not a part of our charter. So, let us now start our splendid breakfast to face the real challenge.
Anil Prasad 17:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)