geni wrote:
I think this
would be an interesting experiment. Instead of
deletionist and inclusionist camps throwing around anecdotes, you
get a sizeable body of candidates to study, plus it encourages people
to think about the process that they want to follow when the period
ends and they have a whole pile of articles they want to process
efficiently.
The inclusionist camp could of course just obstruct everything.
And the deletionists camp could of course just speedy-delete everything.
Or, both camps could assume good faith and relax a bit, each not
thinking that the "other guys" are a bunch of deranged
encyclopedia-haters who want to destroy everything in an orgy of
deletion and/or garage band stubs. :) A lot of people are currently
disagreeing over what sorts of articles merit inclusion in Wikipedia,
but it's not like most of those people think Wikipedia's going to go
down in flames if the "wrong" standards are picked. At least, they
shouldn't. Wikipedia is more resistant than that.
What risk? Admins on RC patrol will be able to delete
stuff before
anyone else has time to react and digging thourgh the deletion log
when you don't have admin powers is imposible and when you do it is
insanely boring.
Are there no inclusionist admins who would go on "deletion log patrol"
if such a thing became common? Would you worry about a corresponding
problem of unchecked undeletion?
As one possible alternative, the "pure wiki deletion" method of simply
blanking pages would make it a lot easier to double-check and revert by
non-admins.