Stephen Gilbert wrote:
I think the method we've been using since the beginning is pretty good. It is as follows:
- Propose a convention.
- Discuss the convention with any interested parties.
Note objections and proposed improvements. 3. If most people agree, start using the convention. 4. If it's not working, or if Wikipedians don't find the convention useful, stop using it.
Rules and bureaucracy would just kill the organic development that we have here.
The method proposed merely counted supporters. The use of the word rule was unfortunate. Its intended meaning was similar to the existing guidelines of which one is to disregard guidelines as per personal preference.
Automated information reporting is not bureaucracy.
It is empowerment. The individual user choosing to exercise personal preference has better information to judge potential consequences which may result from the community at large.
To a newcomer a list of 5 or 6 handles may be deceptive if they have perused the Wikipedian list page. Five or six out of hundreds is not terribly influential.
Whereas 10 to 50 percent of active editors or participatory voters taking time to judge the rules is substantial and likely to matter in the stacks.
regards, mirwin