...so it doesn't go your way, and therefore it is impractical and inefficient. Geez, I'd hate to see how it'd be if our politicians ever acted upon this logic...
That's not at all what I said. Full utilization of VfD requires you to spend all your time voting and none of your time writing encyclopedia articles. That's why it's impractical and inefficient. Direct democracy is not a good solution, and my politicians have already recognized that and acted upon it (of course here in Florida we do have some direct democracy, in the form of 9 constitutional ammendments on the ballot for the year, but 9 polls a year is hardly the same as 30 a day).
Besides all this, you can only take the anology between Wikipedia and government so far. The purpose of government is to protect the rights of its citizens. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia. Any notions of democracy in Wikipedia are there solely to facilitate that goal. And that's part of the reason why Wikipedia is not a democracy.
But I don't know why I bother wasting my breath. You took my comment completely out of context and nitpicked on one little part of it. Read the whole comment again. You'll see that whether or not things go my way has nothing to do with it.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Full utilization of VfD requires you to spend all your time voting and none of your time writing encyclopedia articles. That's why it's impractical and inefficient.
That is THE major problems with that process.
Direct democracy is not a good solution, and my politicians have already recognized that and acted upon it (of course here in Florida we do have some direct democracy, in the form of 9 constitutional ammendments on the ballot for the year, but 9 polls a year is hardly the same as 30 a day).
There are other significant elements. I presume that you are able to deal with all 9 amendments in a single trip to the polls, and not 9 separate trips. There will also be a lapse of time between the day that the amendments are proposed, and the day when you must vote. This gives you some time to reflect upon the matters. Our multitude of proposed deletions require you to make an immediate choice without any time to reflect or to seek background information on the subject.
Besides all this, you can only take the anology between Wikipedia and government so far. The purpose of government is to protect the rights of its citizens. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia. Any notions of democracy in Wikipedia are there solely to facilitate that goal. And that's part of the reason why Wikipedia is not a democracy.
Whatever democratic aspects there are to Wikipedia are there to protect and respect the rights of all contributors, including those who have minority opinions. Since there is an apparent general right of all who come here to contribute, any attempt to delete these writings conflicts with that right. This does not mean that we have to accept everything, only that the onus is upon the deleters to establish their case.