Sure, improve it, but that's no reason to lambaste its community, or make false claims about it. (David, you still haven't addressed my questioning of how historical pages make Meta unusable).
Because you can't tell what on earth is active and what isn't. e.g. Is [[Meta:Babel]] active? It's supposed to be the Village Pump of Meta. I see tumbleweeds blow past. e.g. Is [[m:RFA]] checked at all on any regular basis? The bureaucrats were notable by their complete absence until Linuxbeak ran for bureaucrat, which appeared to cause a sudden flurry of activity and declarations that there were enough bureaucrats on Meta, even though there was visibly no-one minding the store. That sort of thing. I've given both these examples before on the wiki, though not here (my apologies).
Note, by the way, that everyone listed on [[WM:OM]] are individuals - despite, e.g. Anthere answering one person [1] with a reply to what someone else said [2]. So, e.g., Linuxbeak's list of things he wants isn't mine (e.g. an en: only meta).
I will note also that the incumbents have successfully driven out at least some of the "insurgents" [3]. Are you proud? If not, why?
- d.
(I'm giving references because people are too often claiming not to know what I'm talking about in this discussion.)
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta_talk:MetaProject_to_Overhau... [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta_talk:MetaProject_to_Overhau... - I do agree this was inappropriate, but it does help not to answer the wrong person, as if everyone involved is a single entity. [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:MetaProject_to_Overhaul_Met...