On 9/20/05, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Thus it will always be the case that AfD becomes unmanageable, and
that the unmanageability affects the exclusionists noticably less
than the inclusionists.
Actually my conclusion is the opposite, from more or less the same set of
observations.
Firstly, as Wikipedia grows larger at an accelerating rate, the likelihood
of a given article ever being listed for deletion diminishes. AfD is not
growing in size, it seems to have stabilized, while I presume that the
article growth rate rises.
Secondly, while it is true that it's harder to make the case against
deletion, a consensus is not required to avoid deletion.
Thirdly, an article that is salvageable can be improved with a small amount
of effort during the discussion, and this has an immense effect on the
result of the debate.
Exclusionism may become more popular, because it appeals as a quick fix to
feelings that the project is growing beyond control.
However the same accelerating growth ensures that exclusionism confined to
AfD can only have a diminishing influence on the overall end product, as a
smaller proportion of both incoming new articles and of existing,
established articles, falls within the limited reach of AfD.