geni wrote:
I think this would be an interesting experiment. Instead of deletionist and inclusionist camps throwing around anecdotes, you get a sizeable body of candidates to study, plus it encourages people to think about the process that they want to follow when the period ends and they have a whole pile of articles they want to process efficiently.
The inclusionist camp could of course just obstruct everything.
And the deletionists camp could of course just speedy-delete everything.
Or, both camps could assume good faith and relax a bit, each not thinking that the "other guys" are a bunch of deranged encyclopedia-haters who want to destroy everything in an orgy of deletion and/or garage band stubs. :) A lot of people are currently disagreeing over what sorts of articles merit inclusion in Wikipedia, but it's not like most of those people think Wikipedia's going to go down in flames if the "wrong" standards are picked. At least, they shouldn't. Wikipedia is more resistant than that.
What risk? Admins on RC patrol will be able to delete stuff before anyone else has time to react and digging thourgh the deletion log when you don't have admin powers is imposible and when you do it is insanely boring.
Are there no inclusionist admins who would go on "deletion log patrol" if such a thing became common? Would you worry about a corresponding problem of unchecked undeletion?
As one possible alternative, the "pure wiki deletion" method of simply blanking pages would make it a lot easier to double-check and revert by non-admins.