From: Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
JAY JG stated for the record:
From: Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org
Mark Gallagher stated for the record:
G'day Sean,
I know the hyperbole on this list comes thick and fast most of the
time,
but when readers start to seriously wish they could tag as
{{nonsense}}
entire paragraphs of one's emails, it's time to think a little before spewing crap.
When a system is so destructively broken that numerous members of the community realize that it is impossible to repair and begin calling for its complete abolition (and use apt phrases such as "dynamite enema"), it is time for that system's defenders to question their fanaticism.
The hyperbole regarding AFD's "brokenness", including terms like "fanaticism" applied to its supporters, is not a strong argument that it is actually broken.
Jay.
Strong arguments proving its brokenness are laid out in detail elsewhere and need not be repeated. Observation of the fanaticism of those denying that plethora of argument, on the other hand, is perennial.
Sean, I'm very rarely on AfD, but from what I've seen (and what others have said here) the AfD appears to make reasonable decisions 95-98% percent of the time - it's the last 2-5% of controversial decisions that are causing all the angst here, combined with concern over a "poisonous atmosphere" on the page.
The page deals with over 100 articles a day, so it's easy enough to find examples of bad decisions. However, no system is perfect, and the error-rate at AfD does not appear to be particularly unreasonable for a human intensive process working under fairly loose guidelines. It certainly has not been demonstrated that the any other system would have a lower error rate. Furthermore, it should be kept in mind that "hard cases make bad law". Finally, as has been pointed out by Tony, AfD itself has a limited capacity, so the overall "harm" it can do Wikipedia, at least in terms of articles deleted in error (or, for that matter, kept in error), is miniscule.
What I think is perhaps more harmful is the overheated rhetoric found on this mailing list on this topic - demonization of those with whom one disagrees is extremely harmful to the Wikipedia community. From what I can tell, people on both sides of the issues are arguing in good faith, and are generally making reasonable arguments. In the end, rather than ratcheting things up and making them personal, can't everyone just agree to disagree?
Jay.