Proposal talk:Encouraging process improvement

From Strategic Planning
  • What went wrong? (Keep asking this question each time you see anything negative posted about Wikipedia. The recent Slashdot[1] article really brought this question in my mind.)

I don't mind about that Slashdot story. I think more edits from newbies get reverted these days because we have more tools to track and undo recent changes. I actually see more reverts as a good thing. As for deletion processes, I haven't been involved in them for some time. But I can well imagine there's a scary backlog. Since the reasons for deleting things are often a matter of policy, perhaps some way of making voting much quicker would help? Try to get it down to one or two clicks rather than having to edit the page? --Bodnotbod 18:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was not actually scared about the Slashdot story itself, but rather the debate in the comments. In particular there was this one comment that accused WP admins of being on a power trip - myself included, for reasons I can't quite comprehend, as I have not made particularly frequent use of my admin tools lately. =) Still, the point is that there's plenty of mud clods flying at various Wikipedia processes - and sometimes there's a good reason for that. Yes, sometimes, it's misguided and sometimes people misunderstand how our processes work. But my point is, we should realise that there may be problems in our processes and we should be more willing to change it.
As far as en.wp's deletion processes go, these days I'd advocate just abolishing the whole thing entirely and instead focus on improving the Proposed Deletion process and perhaps extending the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. But the deletionist wikipoliticians in the power wouldn't want any of that, now would they? They want stuff dead and don't want anyone to say that the article should be kept. (see? the anti-Wikipedia sentiment is catching on this easily!) --Wwwwolf 08:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm in partial agreement with this, but I'd like to see a list of what we think is broken or better still what processes today give different results to a few years back. WereSpielChequers 16:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good luck, with that

Sounds like a great idea, in theory. I don't see it happening in practice; projects within Wikipedia have ever more weird guidelines that superseed the basic policies. - Brya 16:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]