On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 13:39:11 -0500, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
It is certainly misguided. But had we not so utterly soured our relationship with the webcomics community (and we have - there is very little rational discussion to be had with webcomics people about Wikipedia anymore based on the slap in the face that the previous campaign was) we could probably come to some sort of understanding with a lot of them. Instead we made that impossible, because we're awesome like that.
Well, maybe. But you know some of these people and they trust you. You are the public face here, and you are a nice guy, so maybe that can be fixed. Or maybe not.
Things to do:
Change AfD into "articles for discussion".
Allow any editor in good standing to say "OK, I can fix this one" and take it on for 14 days, at the end of which if it is not fixed it drops back into the funnel. With the comments wiped; it's probably not the same article any more.
Make this individual editors, not projects - some wikiprojects are in flagrant breach of [[WP:OWN]] pretty much all the time.
Allow more outcomes: * keep * delete * merge to... (and notify the first merge advocate on close that it's time to put his idea into practice) * accelerated cleanup, 7 days to reference and tidy or it goes into a category for expired accelerated cleanup and can be nuked
Some ideas anyway, with the idea of allowing people to pick an article out of the trash can and fix it without having to spend their whole time defending it on AfD and without risking invalid !votes because the article has changed (I'm thinking of people like Geogre here). Obvious crap, waste as little time as possible. Sure, the creator of a garage band article wants it kept and will remove a {{prod}}, too bad. And the borderline ones, get to a list small enough to be manageable and intelligible, and attract some genuine thought.
Guy (JzG)