[WikiEN-l] Semi-solid evidence that process is in fact dangerous to Wikipedia

[MacGyverMagic/Mgm]

On 9/5/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 05/09/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9/4/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > This means that if we want the content to grow and be *good*, we need
> > > to be more newbie-friendly.
> > > This is also a BIG stick to use on Byzantine overengineered processes
> > > and policy. Excessive process is actively newbie-hostile.
>
> > You can't expect a site the size of Wikipedia to run without a serious
> > amount of policy.
>
>
> No, which is why process is important.
>
>
> > If we stop adding policies things like living person bios would have
> > degenerated into flame wars with no way out.
>
>
> It's a good thing AFD has never done that. Oh, wait.
>
>
> > Newbies do face a steeper
> > learning curve, but in the end it is best for Wikipedia and it is the
> > project rather than the newbies we should care about. -
>
>
> The point of this is some indication that if we don't explicitly care
> about the newbies then it will in fact be damaging to the project.
> Please read the thread.


True, we should care for newbies, but we should have the good of the project
at number one. I can't find a single policy that we don't need (can you?).
Policies we don't need probably won't get promoted to policy to begin with.

AFD is only as toxic as you make it. We should all start by quiting 2-letter
nominations (NN) using lone jargon words (cruft, non-notable, etc) and start
explaining or reasoning based on references, google searches and specific
reasons that can be argued. If newbies come across reasonably argued
discussions in AFD the process would work a lot better.

Mgm