From: Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
JAY JG stated for the record:
> From: Sean Barrett <sean(a)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.