I understand that notability is not a simple rule but the result of countless debates and arbitrations that resemble a system of common law. Still, I think it is very unfortunate that a new contributor often needs to win an argument with a deletionist as soon as he writes a new article for the first time. That's like requiring every new business to win a nasty lawsuit (or jump through similarly onerous hoops) before they can actually sell anything. The result of the former is a precipitous drop in the number of new contributors and the further consolidation of editorial power in the hands of existing contributors. The result of the latter, which we often see in markets with government-approved quasi-monopolies like health-care supplies and payment processing, is stifled innovation.
> Maybe we should just opt for a simpler system and resign to the fact that the end result will be worse.
How do you know that the result will be worse? What do you even mean by worse? One of the symptoms of an unhealthy monopoly is that the established powers refuse to experiment, lest they lose their dominant position. Attempts to depart from the status quo are met with alarmism and doomsday scenarios, and existing rules and procedures get romanticized to absurd ends. When a community is ailing, its cherished processes should be the first to be questioned. Deletionists might have had a noble purpose when they began their crusade a few years ago, but now that they wield an enormous amount of power over other contributors, I cannot think of them except as part of a self-perpetuating unhealthy monopoly over editorial power.
Rules like "Thou shalt not put up ads here" and "Thou shalt use proper citations", even if no less complicated to apply in the real world, at least articulate clear ideals that people can understand, and provide concrete guidelines that new contributors can follow. The less abstract the rules are, the less room there is for abuse.
Sorry, I guess that was badly put. I wasn't discussing any specific change/simplification of the system and saying that this would make things worse. Without some specific changes at hand it's difficult/meaningless to make such predictions. I certainly don't think that the current process is optimal and any change is a change for the worse. Personally, I'd be happier with drastically relaxed notability criteria.
I meant that if there was a change that involved a trade-off between process complexity and article quality[0], we shouldn't tend towards article quality at all costs. I meant that maybe a lower article quality is worth it if it means being less byzantine, less harsh towards the newbies, more flexible, etc.
Of course if you can avoid that trade-off, if Wikipedia can be any or all of these things without a drop in quality -- and I'm sure it can be although I don't know how -- that's even better and we should implement that first.
[0] You're 100% correct that "worse" isn't well defined here, and "high article quality" is not much better.
> Maybe we should just opt for a simpler system and resign to the fact that the end result will be worse.
How do you know that the result will be worse? What do you even mean by worse? One of the symptoms of an unhealthy monopoly is that the established powers refuse to experiment, lest they lose their dominant position. Attempts to depart from the status quo are met with alarmism and doomsday scenarios, and existing rules and procedures get romanticized to absurd ends. When a community is ailing, its cherished processes should be the first to be questioned. Deletionists might have had a noble purpose when they began their crusade a few years ago, but now that they wield an enormous amount of power over other contributors, I cannot think of them except as part of a self-perpetuating unhealthy monopoly over editorial power.
Rules like "Thou shalt not put up ads here" and "Thou shalt use proper citations", even if no less complicated to apply in the real world, at least articulate clear ideals that people can understand, and provide concrete guidelines that new contributors can follow. The less abstract the rules are, the less room there is for abuse.