On 04/05/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)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