[WikiEN-l] Semi-solid evidence that process is in fact dangerous to Wikipedia

Tue Sep 5 17:39:42 UTC 2006

MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

>True, we should care for newbies, but we should have the good of the project
>at number one. I can't find a single policy that we don't need (can you?).
>Policies we don't need probably won't get promoted to policy to begin with.
>
:-D   This statement was obviously meant as a joke

>AFD is only as toxic as you make it. We should all start by quiting 2-letter
>nominations (NN) using lone jargon words (cruft, non-notable, etc) and start
>explaining or reasoning based on references, google searches and specific
>reasons that can be argued. If newbies come across reasonably argued
>discussions in AFD the process would work a lot better.
>
Why should we expect newbies to have a doctorate in wiki-lawyering?  
Reasonable arguments should not depend on the ability to cite policy cruft.

Ec