In practice any such implementations will lead to elitism. Trolls or no trolls, we look a contributions and not contributors, so everyone should be able to make their say count. A rule that allows only established bridge experts to vote on bridge deletions will be disastrous. The ideal process involves a large part of the community, not a small focused minority who are not statistically representative of the community.
Molu
On Thu, 04 May 2006 11:51:48 -0400, Jimmy Wales wrote:
""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.
So how should this work in practice?" --------------------------------- Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2ยข/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
On 5/5/06, Molu loom91@yahoo.com wrote:
In practice any such implementations will lead to elitism. Trolls or no trolls, we look a contributions and not contributors, so everyone should be able to make their say count. A rule that allows only established bridge experts to vote on bridge deletions will be disastrous. The ideal process involves a large part of the community, not a small focused minority who are not statistically representative of the community.
Molu
Right now the AfD process is mostly controlled by the "small focused minority" who find it worth their while to comment on every AfD. I would put it forward that this process does not involve a large part of the community, although it is setup to allow anyone to contribute, many people prefer to put effort into developing articles rather than trying to argue, generally with futile results due to the "majority vote" closing techniques used which negate focused comments further than referring to the "nom" or their impression of "notability", mostly using the "google test".
Peter