Some questions.
Is the procedure really failing? Are we all just nava-gazing? Is it as
simple as David Goodman suggested several thousand words back when he
explained that the important articles can only be saved by active,
interested participation? Are we fighting for a hopelessly obscure minority?
-S
On 1/12/07, Confusing Manifestation <confusingmanifestation(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
What nobody seems to have mentioned is the fact that in AfD
discussions admins are *supposed* to look at all the votes and the
reasonaing behind them, and make an informed decision based on that
(which is exactly what several posts have said should be done). Of
course there are probably a fair few who don't, and in any case the
informed decision is still liable to have a bit of bias behind it, but
just saying "a thousand 'delete, nn' shouldn't count as much as one
'keep, here's a bunch of references'" isn't actually adding
anything
to the procedure that isn't (theoretically at least) already there.
CM
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l