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

[David Gerard]

On 05/09/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.


Policy probably. I'm taking about process in general too. There's
plenty of process that should be culled regularly, per the wisdom of
[[m:instruction creep]].


> 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.


Which is precisely what I mean by using it as an example. I still get
contacted by people upset that "Wikipedia called me a vanity writer,
what can I do short of taking legal action?" and trying to explain
that it's a jargon term ... one which the AFD regulars were kindly
asked not to fucking use for this precise reason. Nuke from orbit,
rebuild from scratch.

Policy: We delete some stuff.
Process: something Kafka would have found implausible.


- d.