Hi thanks for sharing!
I would agree on many of the issues there, is why you think writing to Maryana Iskander would make things change since the foundation has no editorial rights on Wikipedia ?
I agree with Nattes - this is an issue that should be addressed by all who (want to) take part in Wikipedia maintenance and development, not the WMF CEO.
I think the best thing WMF can do is support multiple ways for people to take part in these processes.
Maybe the solution lies in a better system rating the articles. For me there would be no problems having sourced articles PUNKT, and not worry about notability criteria. That would shift the maintainance energy on deleting articles to maintaining them :).
Yes - that could be one of the ways!
But that does not mean that we can have no secundary sources at all. I think we should move more towards the wiktionnary criterias. That means we focuse more over sourcing each line of information, not “notability criterias”.
But this seems impossible the communities would not agree.
I love that you use the plural 'communities', as when we assume singular, than it is tyranny of majority too often, but given the resources we could easily have more than one system in place for each Wikipedia instance.
Maybe having a project which adds deleted articles in a “stub” encyclopedia? Like an “wiki article spore” or article nursery ?
It can even more easily just be in a different namespace.
So Stub is not just a status category, but Namespace like Draft:
Best wishes - Z. Blace