G'day Daniel S,
I think the
problem with DRV and other processes that reivew
content is the entire premise.
I reviewed a backlog previously to discover a
template. To my
horror, it noted:
"The community is interested in process not
content".
This is madness. - Randall Brackett
I am most definitely not a lawyer, but I think it's exactly the same
distinction as the distinction between a _trial_ and an _appeal._
No. Well, yes. But no.
DRV has been legitimately accused of endorsing bad decisions on that
grounds that "process was followed". The people arguing that DRV should
do such a thing are either:
a) Process wonks, who can therefore be ignored (or, preferably, locked
in a padded cell for their own comfort and safety)
b) People who have confused Wikipedia with Real Life.
DRV is *not* an appeals court. The rules that apply to appeals courts
in the USA, Canada, Australia, and I assume practically everywhere else,
do *not* apply to DRV. We need to remember that. DRV is not, it's
true, in the business of providing a venue for AfD Take Two, but neither
is it totally uninterested in the outcome provided process is followed.
DRV is a safeguard to ensure that AfD gets the right *result*. That's
all it's for --- *not*, I repeat *not*, simply to ensure AfD gets the
right *process*. Process being followed is a good indication that the
AfD result was good; but it shouldn't blind us to potential errors.
(And in the legal world there are also phenomena such
as jury
nullification and rogue judges...)
We have them on Wikipedia, too. Witness the Jack Thompson OFFICE action
and certain admins.
--
Mark Gallagher
"What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse