On 2/10/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'm willing to listen to any ideas about reforming AFD, but I tend to
that the whole idea of AFD is like putting a round peg in a square hole,
that it is probably a better idea to just scrap the whole thing rather
waste time fixing something that is fundamentally broken.
It astonishes me that people are still making these kinds of obviously false
assertions; is it simply the hope that repeating them often enough will
somehow make them true?
The truth is that 95% of the decisions made by AfD (and perhaps even more)
are correct ones; unencyclopedic articles are deleted, and good articles are
rapidly kept. Even those people who consistently assert that AfD is "toxic"
admit that. All systems have flaws, and I've never seen any evidence that
*any* other system would have a higher accuracy rate.
Is there any way these threads could avoid this kind of rhetoric in the
future? Or is it just a lost cause?