On 9/30/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/30/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/30/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Actually I don't think it can be fixed. I am convinced that it could
be
safely wound down provided a procedure for dealing with
hoax/unverifiable
articles was instituted along the same lines as Wikipedia:Copyright_Problems.
Sorry I thought people wanted a system which worked. WP:CP is improveing but it still has a long way to go. -- geni
Perhaps I'm completely oblivious, but WP:CP seems to work fine from where I'm standing. The only problem it has is the immense backlogs it gets every once in a while, but that can be resolved by encouraging people to maintain it. The process itself doesn't appear to "have a long way to go" or am I missing something.
About deletion: There's a simple way to avoid repeated run-ins with AFD. Write better articles that even hard-core deletionists wouldn't think of deleting. One or 2 lines more in a stub can make the difference between viable context or possible deletion candidate.
--Mgm
I agree with geni that WP:CP is improving a little, and I agree with Mgm that it works fine. We should always be looking for ways to improve every part of the project.
The biggest problem with CP is that the job sucks, and so not many admins do it. We need more admins pitching in.