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(a)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.