On 9/12/05, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Had you done it a month ago... but people may be
resistant to a second
major upheaval in a couple of weeks, given the mutterings about the
last one.
Excellent point. I agree completely. Even the most extreme
inclusionists should recognize the fact that the deletionists are also
trying in earnest to improve Wikipedia. Taking away something that
many of them certainly see as <u>a primary tool in their toolbox</u>
for improving Wikipedia for a month is not very considerate of their
feelings.
Some form of "consensus to remove bad articles" is a vital organ to
Wikipedia. Poison cannot be safely removed from a body by removing a
vital organ. Something less extreme than suspending AfD/VfD is in
order.
I never tire of explaining, again and again, at various times, my own
views regarding certain articles worth keeping. I do this mainly
because people who fully understand each others' motives seldom hold
long term grudges.
I suggest we consider adding an optional "hidden from casual browsers"
flag to Wikipedia article records, so that we would have a two level
deletion system: complete crap gets speedied, bad articles get deleted
as usual, good articles get kept as usual, and questionable articles
are shuffled off to limbo where they can be further developed before
being put back into the main articlespace. (I'm not even sure how
much I like this idea myself, but thought I'd throw it out there.)
--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused