Sure, improve it, but that's no reason to lambaste
its
community, or make false claims about it. (David, you still haven't
addressed my questioning of how historical pages make Meta unusable).
Because you can't tell what on earth is active and what isn't. e.g. Is
[[Meta:Babel]] active? It's supposed to be the Village Pump of Meta. I
see tumbleweeds blow past. e.g. Is [[m:RFA]] checked at all on any
regular basis? The bureaucrats were notable by their complete absence
until Linuxbeak ran for bureaucrat, which appeared to cause a sudden
flurry of activity and declarations that there were enough bureaucrats
on Meta, even though there was visibly no-one minding the store. That
sort of thing. I've given both these examples before on the wiki,
though not here (my apologies).
Note, by the way, that everyone listed on [[WM:OM]] are individuals -
despite, e.g. Anthere answering one person [1] with a reply to what
someone else said [2]. So, e.g., Linuxbeak's list of things he wants
isn't mine (e.g. an en: only meta).
I will note also that the incumbents have successfully driven out at
least some of the "insurgents" [3]. Are you proud? If not, why?
- d.
(I'm giving references because people are too often claiming not to
know what I'm talking about in this discussion.)
[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta_talk:MetaProject_to_Overha…
[2]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta_talk:MetaProject_to_Overha…
- I do agree this was inappropriate, but it does help not to answer
the wrong person, as if everyone involved is a single entity.
[3]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:MetaProject_to_Overhaul_Me…