Phil wrote:
This should be required reading... The sense that our inclusion and notability policies put us at odds with readers who are not major parts of the community has always been there, but this troublingly nails it: the population of people who write articles and people who delete them are nearly exclusive.
You're right, but it's a bit more complicated than that.
For one thing, there's nothing *necessarily* wrong with having policy set by a relatively small number of insiders -- a consistent policy, like a consistent look and feel or editorial tone or categorization scheme, is something better realized by the dedicated few than the madding crowd.
The problem, of course, is that we confront the second of Wikipedia's great contradictions, the first being that anyone can edit, including people (namely vandals) we don't like. Vandals we can deal with pretty well, but the the second contradiction, which I'm not at all sure we've figured out a way to cope with, is that anyone can set policy, including people (like narrow-visioned tiny-minded wonks) who do it spectacularly badly.
(And this is not at all a new observation, of course; it's at the core of Clay Shirky's classic essay "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy", which should also be required reading.)
Another complication is that it's not just "people who write articles" versus "people who delete them". What really matters -- or ought to -- is the people who *read* them. Like the Lorax who speaks for the trees, Wikipedia desperately needs some verifiable, NPOV channel through which we could learn the wants and needs of our readers. Inclusion and notability policies ought to be based neither on what an anonymous contributor is interesting in writing, nor what a self-appointed policy wonk deems "notable" or "encyclopedic", but rather, on what some nontrivial numbers of our readers are interested in reading.