[WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[White Cat]

Consider it this way, if the other side is cheating in chess, why should you
want to switch to checkers?
There is no consensus behind the current practice so acting as if it is
commonly accepted does not go beyond being a mere misconception.

  - White Cat



On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Noah Salzman <noah at salzman.net> wrote:

>
> On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:10 AM, WJhonson at aol.com wrote:
>
> > These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so
> > reader
> > wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are "acceptable" in the
> > mainstream,
> > but they would be present for people already in-world to read and
> > edit.
>
>
> Makes sense to me. If the "articles for deletion" process is usurped
> by the "articles for purgatory" process then it transforms the debate
> entirely. If you keep losing at chess than change the game to
> checkers, rather than continuing to complain about losing at chess.
>
> Deletion could remain a standard process but with much clearer and
> stricter guidelines. Perhaps, it could be changed to "innocent until
> proven guilty" as opposed to the deletion process now where the
> defendant has to do a ton of busy work to save a "guilt-assumed"
> article.
>
> As someone somewhat removed from the politics of the project, my main
> question is what does the step-by-step process look like for making
> this change happen? I imagine there is more than one path: grass roots
> consensus building vs lobbying The Powers That Be?
>
> My apologies if that is an amusingly naive way of putting it.
>
>  --Noah--
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>