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

[Ray Saintonge]

MacGyverMagic/Mgm 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.
>>
>>Look at Debian, bogged down in process, to the point where Richard
>>Stallman failed to make it in as a Debian maintainer for his own
>>software because of excessive process. Look how it took Ubuntu to give
>>it a much-needed rocket up the arse. Without Ubuntu, we'd still be
>>waiting on Etch. Will it take someone doing a successful fork to
>>decalcify Wikipedia policy?
>>    
>>
>You can't expect a site the size of Wikipedia to run without a serious
>amount of policy.
>If we stop adding policies things like living person bios would have
>degenerated into flame wars with no way out. 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. -
>
Spoken like a true religious zealot!  It's characteristic of straw man 
arguments to take a situation where there is a clear policy need, and 
extrapolate that to apply to all sorts of unrelated matters.

Saying that living person bios must be verifiable is a simple and 
straightforward statement of policy.  How does one get from there to "a 
serious amount of policy"?

Ec