[WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

[Noah Salzman]

On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:10 AM, WJhonson at aol.com wrote:

> These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so  
> reader
> wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are "acceptable" in the  
> mainstream,
> but they would be present for people already in-world to read and  
> edit.


Makes sense to me. If the "articles for deletion" process is usurped  
by the "articles for purgatory" process then it transforms the debate  
entirely. If you keep losing at chess than change the game to  
checkers, rather than continuing to complain about losing at chess.

Deletion could remain a standard process but with much clearer and  
stricter guidelines. Perhaps, it could be changed to "innocent until  
proven guilty" as opposed to the deletion process now where the  
defendant has to do a ton of busy work to save a "guilt-assumed"  
article.

As someone somewhat removed from the politics of the project, my main  
question is what does the step-by-step process look like for making  
this change happen? I imagine there is more than one path: grass roots  
consensus building vs lobbying The Powers That Be?

My apologies if that is an amusingly naive way of putting it.

  --Noah--