Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/23/06, Matt Brown <morven(a)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]].
--
Alphax -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP