As it seems that _plenty_ of people are
dissatisfied with the Way Wikipedia Works (TM)
I'm not so sure about that - you have to remember that people that are
dissatisfied are always far more vocal than those than are satisfied.
There are certainly a significant number of dissatisfied people, but
maybe not as many as you think (I don't know how many you think there
are, obviously, so I'm just guessing).
No, no, no. This is where I strongly (but
respectfully) disagree.
Rules need to be _simple_, or their purpose is null and void.
Oh, I agree, rules should always be as simple as possible. The "as
possible" part is key, though - they need to be complicated enough to
do the job.
If you
look at the "Rules" section in the Wikipendium proposal
(
http://wikipendium.blogspot.com/2008/07/vision-need-and-new-compendium-of-h…),
you'll see that the rules cover practically all situations that are
likely to occur in an online community and can still fit into three
policy pages - for example, content that does not comply with the
"acceptability" rules will be eligible for immediate deletion, the
"acceptable behaviour" policy will cover blocking, and methods for
arbitrating disputes don't belong in policy (it could simply be stated
in the "acceptable behaviour" policy when editors should pursue
dispute resolution, and provide links to pages describing how to
resolve disputes).
Your constables will unilaterally delete articles they think don't fit
the acceptability policy? In that case, you will certainly need a
policy for arbitrating disputes!