[WikiEN-l] Category:<Subjective-pejorative>, weak consensus, and ! NPOV

[Cobb]

>Garion1000 wrote:

>>On 6/22/06, Cobb wrote:
>>
>> In summary, the system is broken. But you won't get any sense on this
>> mailing list, because most of the people here don't actually edit
>> Wikipedia these days. They just pontificate and have faith in some
>> mystical power of the Wiki.

>Excuse me? I know editcount doesn't mean everything. But I would hate
>counting the editcount of regular posters on this mailing list. Even if
>only counting (main) edits.

"These days".

Some of the pontificators here should throw themselves
back into editing from a newbie's point of view. Pick some craphole
area of Wikipedia and try editing, and imagine that you don't know
anyone else... don't have tame admin buddies to call on. Imagine
facing up to a group of editors who know the ins and outs of the
process and how to game it. It might wake some people up.

Regarding my point about AFD... which seems to be misunderstood
by Jesse W.

The Wikipedia AFD process is complicated and crufty. Putting an
article up for AFD should be easy as adding {{afd|reason}} (don't make
technical arguments in response to this. I'm just telling you how it should
work). Putting something up for deletion should be almost as easy as
creating a new page. Currently the AFD process is obscure and
technical. It doesn't help that there are inclusionist editors who seem
to want to make it as unintuitive as possible and keep it that way,
and frustrate any attempts to change it. Pure wiki deletion might
offer an improvement... but something tells me that it's going
nowhere due to being too simple and easy to use.

>JesseW wrote:
> Also, as I mentioned above, we have a number of areas that are
>well-patrolled by non-nutballs who *do* follow our polices and guidelines,
>and editors who don't want to fight can also toil in those areas, and leave

>the work of defending the articles against crazies to others.

And this is an argument against what? Some bits of Wikipedia aren't too
bad, so that's ok.