On 9/30/05, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/30/05, Tony Sidaway
<f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually I don't think it can be fixed. I am convinced that it could
be
> safely wound down provided a procedure for
dealing with
hoax/unverifiable
articles
was instituted along the same lines as
Wikipedia:Copyright_Problems.
Sorry I thought people wanted a system which worked. WP:CP is
improveing but it still has a long way to go.
--
geni
Perhaps I'm completely oblivious, but WP:CP seems to work fine from
where I'm standing. The only problem it has is the immense backlogs it
gets every once in a while, but that can be resolved by encouraging
people to maintain it. The process itself doesn't appear to "have a
long way to go" or am I missing something.
About deletion: There's a simple way to avoid repeated run-ins with
AFD. Write better articles that even hard-core deletionists wouldn't
think of deleting. One or 2 lines more in a stub can make the
difference between viable context or possible deletion candidate.
--Mgm
I agree with geni that WP:CP is improving a little, and I agree with Mgm
that it works fine. We should always be looking for ways to improve every
part of the project.
The biggest problem with CP is that the job sucks, and so not many admins do
it. We need more admins pitching in.