On 04/05/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I have an example, based on a nice dinner conversation I had with Sam Wantman. Sam knows a lot about bridges, and there is a subcommunity of people who know each other and work on bridge articles. Super. This is why our stuff on bridges is super excellent.
If a bridge is listed on AfD, the result is of course likely to be a horrific mess. People who don't know anything about bridges are likely to vote based on pre-existing battles going on there between inclusionists and deletionists. If someone cares deeply about the issue, they can campaign for random other friends to come and vote. The admins who go through and clean it up will find it very difficult to figure out what to do, having little idea of the reputations of the various parties, and therefore have no choice to follow the disastrously bad rule of "one user account, one vote" ... even though this includes the votes of trolls, newbies, sockpuppets, meatpuppets, idiots *and* people who know what they are talking about and should be the ones deciding.
Wouldn't it be better in this case to say, you know what, we actually have bridge experts, people who know about bridges, and these people ought to be the ones deciding, not random people on AfD.
Replace "bridge" with "Pokemon character" and you'll see the problem :)
Steve