On 12/10/05, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Brilliant. Really, really fucking brilliant! I love it when people express radical and free ideas which wont ever be tried unless by undemocratic decree.
The only problem with it is that AFD people are are there precisely because they are neither good article progenitors nor good article editors. That's why we call them "Deletionists" --because that's just what they do. I attach no value judgement to the name of "Deletionist" other than any pre-concieved social prejudice that values creation over destruction.
Ergo, Creativity needs a mirror in Destruction --taking away such a major function will mean that those who have over time been driven to AFD (whatever meaning one may give to "driven") will take their skills of destruction to articles -- destructive reverts, rollbacks, cutting etc.
All of which can be good--dont get me wrong--and certainly putting doing these in balance is the best kind of approach. But as they say in Go, a masterful player will see the difference between a good move and a bad one as like 'the difference between a feather and a cinder block.' Not known for their feather-sensitive sublety --Deletionists need somewhere to go to do what it is they do.
Stevertigo
Blameing the deletionists. Not logical.
133 Inclusionists http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians/Membe...
94 Deletionists
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Deletionist_Wikipedians
Deletion requires a 2/3s majority. There is no logical way that the deletionists should be able to win against the inclusionists.
-- geni