Policies and/or sort of policies can always be weaponized. A highly legible ruleset with less "sort of" might lower the barrier for new contributors but come wi

Policies and/or sort of policies can always be weaponized. A highly legible ruleset with less "sort of" might lower the barrier for new contributors but come with its own tradeoffs. Rigidity, for example. Is getting more contributors involved a limiting factor for wikipedia? Wikipedia's goal isn't necessarily to maximize the number of contributors, or articles. They aren't facebook. Ultimately, wikipedia is still pioneering its space. There isn't really anything else like it, and all considered, it works remarkably well. I don't see how any version of wikipedia could really avoid adversersarial dynamics. It's those adversarial dynamics that make decisions, even though clear policies or authorities don't really exist. Sure, many will find it alienating. Most people don't need to edit wikipedia for it to work though. I think what we need is other wikipedia-like things. The ideal solution to a lot of deletionists problem would be more highly active sites that work in different ways.