three years was a joke (you could spend three years in college and may not be able to graduate in wikipediapolicy). bland joke. If Wikipedia is to be great, (We want that?) we want everyone capable of understanding wikipediapolicy (We want that?). If everyone doesn't uderstand Wikipediapolicy to the finist detail then they must be cruft or newb. We won't help them learn the mysteries we will give the pages uopon pages of WP: . Not every editor is going to understand finite points of policy, that is why Wikipedia is exclusive and not so inclusive as we all say it is on our welcome templates. How can we really welcome people when we have just posted an spd tag? or reduced them to three sentences? I love Wikipedia. I think it is the greatest resource that we have but cant we let people know what they are in for? apart from the lil tag that says you may be deleted? We are about being BOLD but why hide this simple truth? Mike33
On 25/06/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
3 years? that is total bullshit. I have been contributing only since August of 06, and I have been deeply involved in all sorts of heated and influential deletion discussions surrounding policy interpretation. I have had my views respected and heard bc of the clarity and (I hope) veracity of my interpretation. Wikipedia is a meritocracy. No matter how long you've been around, if you have a strong argument you will be heard. It is simply that most new editors ignore policy and only argue around semantics. This is naturally ignored for the most part. But once any new editor who figures out what they should be using as evidence, they can be heard.