Hoi, Yes, there are many rules. Yes, they have arisen because of the need felt by some. It is totally obvious that these rules are created with the "best intentions". Given the state of play these rules are not analysed for their effect particularly not for their side effects. The rules and the consensus associated with them are produced by an in-crowd that is either directly affected because they get a result that they seek because it enables them to manage whatever in the way they see fit or they are in it because they made a career out of it. The participation in these processes is low and consensus may be defined by a functionary who has an interest in the result. It is true that there are too few people involved in applying these rules but given the toxicity involved and the power politics it is quite obvious for me that I keep an arm length's distance as much as I can help it. My problem is that I seek ways to share the information we have and seek mechanisms to share more widely. I care passionately about this and the best personal reply is a ban or a rejoinder that it is always the same thing I bring up. Even though arguments have an effect in that they help change the models I propose I seldom hear arguments probably because they expose the weaknesses in the way "we do things". When we are reminded that the rules are an impediment to joining our projects as a volunteer. The best answer there is "because". The problem is that "because" is not good enough because there are too few people maintaining the texts, the data we hold. We do not seek mechanisms that help all of us maintain known basic information. There are two options to do more; it is to be smart at what we do, automate where we can or seek more people. When we automate our way out of a problem, the existing biases are maintained and get solidified. When this is noted, it is already even more problematic even more difficult to change. The consequence for me is that a different perspective to mitigate what ails us is needed. The primary objective is and remains that we share in the sum in the information that is available to us. This in the best way possible to us. For me the sense of superiority of Wikipedians is a serious impediment in achieving results. So to gain a foothold we should break down things that will help us improve and things that will help us expand. Let me explain this with an example that helps us improve: For winners of the George Polk Award there is a list <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_George_Polk_Award_winners> on the English Wikipedia. It has over five hundred entries. It consists of blue and red links. There are many false friends in both the blue and red links; a reference is made to the wrong person or the person exist under a different spelling/name. The winners are being added to Wikidata by me to demonstrate the effect of a curated list. The differences between "my Listeria list" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3AGerardM%2FGeorge_Polk_Award> and the Wikipedia list are something I am willing to resolve when I know the result is structural. It will be structural when, not noticed by readers or uninterested Wikipedia editors all links are associated with Wikidata items. We can expand our information provision from that for red links; we can show data structured to be informative. We can even generate texts when we so choose but that is politically hardly possible given that the "dissemination of the knowledge we have" is not a priority by the Wikipedia powers that be. When information is shared among multiple Wikipedias, the benefits becomes more pronounced. I have an interest in the Ottoman Empire and added information for Sultans and Grand Viziers in the past. This query <https://query.wikidata.org/#SELECT%20%3Fsultan%20%3FsultanLabel%20%3Fsultan_start%20%3Fsultan_end%20%3Fvizier%20%3FvizierLabel%20%3Fvizier_start%20%3Fvizier_end%20WHERE%20%7B%0A%20%0A%20%20%20%20%3Fsultan%20p%3AP39%20%3Fsultan_stmt%20.%0A%20%20%20%20%3Fsultan_stmt%20ps%3AP39%20wd%3AQ15315411%20.%0A%20%20%20%20OPTIONAL%20%7B%3Fsultan_stmt%20pq%3AP580%20%3Fsultan_start%20%7D%20.%20%20%20%20%20%20%0A%20%20%20%20OPTIONAL%20%7B%3Fsultan_stmt%20pq%3AP582%20%3Fsultan_end%20%7D%20.%0A%0A%20%20%20%20%3Fvizier%20p%3AP39%20%3Fvizier_stmt%20.%0A%20%20%20%20%3Fvizier_stmt%20ps%3AP39%20wd%3AQ15063567%20.%0A%20%20%20%20OPTIONAL%20%7B%3Fvizier_stmt%20pq%3AP580%20%3Fvizier_start%20%7D%20.%20%20%20%20%20%20%0A%20%20%20%20OPTIONAL%20%7B%3Fvizier_stmt%20pq%3AP582%20%3Fvizier_end%20%7D%20.%0A%20%20%0A%20%20%20%20FILTER%20%28%28%3Fvizier_start%20%3C%3D%20%3Fsultan_end%29%20%26%26%20%28%3Fvizier_end%20%3E%3D%20%3Fsultan_start%29%29%0A%20%20%0A%20%20SERVICE%20wikibase%3Alabel%20%7B%20bd%3AserviceParam%20wikibase%3Alanguage%20%22%5BAUTO_LANGUAGE%5D%2Ctr%22.%20%7D%0A%7D%20ORDER%20BY%20%3Fsultan_start%20%3Fvizier_start> brings the data together. It shows Sultans and their Grand Viziers. (Thank you for the query Jheald). This query can be the basis for information in every Wikipedia. Given the current interest in Turkey and regaining access for the Turkish Wikipedia, improving data about the Ottoman Empire is something to explore. I learned by adding this information that the Catalan Wikipedia covers more information about the Ottoman Empire than the English. I learned that because of the many spellings for these people it is not trivial to add information that is consistent over all the Wikipedias. I expect that there is room for improvement. To get back to the topic of the track. There is a need for change. Many changes, like the one I propose, can start very low level with little or no visibility. One major benefit is that we will cooperate more because that is the only way whereby we can even attempt to share the sum of all knowledge let alone the easier objective of the sum of the knowledge, information that is available to us. When we do, arguments like "lets ditch Wikidata wholesale" become impossible; they are as silly as "lets ditch Commons". As to spend our way out of the problem; there is not enough money to waste when we insist on maintaining problematic premises Thanks, GerardM On 11 March 2018 at 05:55, Pine W &lt;wiki.pine(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

I wonder if some of the problem is that we have made a mash-up of policies and guidelines on the same pages, thereby making it very hard for newcomers to figure out what they must know and all the stuff that is simply nice to know. Take a look at Verifiability at enwiki. [1] How much of this is really a policy? The whole policy is in the nutshell template! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 5:55 AM, Pine W &lt;wiki.pine(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: