On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:34 AM, stevertigo
<stvrtg(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Sounds like just more strategic deletionist
excusism. There is no
excuse for anyone giving to destruction a higher value than they do to
creation.
So now that things are wrapping up, don't forget to hand out some
merit badges to the 'winners.' Ostensibly, there is a deletionist who
stands out from the pack, for whom a specially branded Trout Award
will do just fine.
WereSpielChequers could have expressed his concerns a bit better here.
It seems that, under the guise of this project, some people are
intentionally writing very low quality articles and then rules-lawyering
over the specific speedy deletion category names:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASeb_az86556&actio…
There can be a fine line between probing the boundary of new user treatment
and a breaching experiment.
I disagree that this rose to the level of a breaching experiment.
However - it was intended as an experiment, not a way to pick on
individual new page patrollers. And ended up being perceived as the
latter, rightly or wrongly. And that wasn't a good thing.
The lessons and changes to flow out of this (I hope...) need to be
structural and community, not individual and personal and
inquisitorial.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com