Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/23/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I noticed this the other day, when I saw someone removing the tag from an article because "it hadn't passed through the Good Articles process properly". And here I was thinking that the point of the thing was that it was to be a largely process-free way of tagging articles that seemed reasonably good.
It was. Then, astonishingly, it turned into an exact mirror of the FA process. In fact, there's very little difference between an FA and a GA as far as I can tell, except that a short article can be a GA but not an FA.
That's insane. Soon you'll need to go through five days of discussion and achieve a majority poll before you can edit an article...
Generally because certain people can never see a good idea that they don't think could be improved with more process, formality, forms and bureaucracy.
There is that. Also, is there a Wikipedia law yet that says "whenever a process is introduced that rates anything according to some criteria, its standards will rise faster than the standards of the things being rated"?
Seems to be true for RfA, FPC, FAC, GAC...
Add it to [[WP:RAUL]].