Writing new guidelines that general folks understand
18-July-2009: These recent events have just re-confirmed what I've been telling people for years: Wikipedia runs on mobocracy, despite other people claiming (for years), "No, no, WP decisions are made per logical reasoning, in accordance with written policies". Well, actually, that's not how decisions have been made, for several years, as of July 2009. I'm not quite sure what the problem is with the wiki-masses, in this attitude, that "truth" is a popularity contest. There can't be a massive, multi-year wiki-cabal, so I suspect these mob-judgments are simply what happens when ordinary folk are challenged to think.Many school teachers have concluded that thinking must be taught to most people. In America, people are not allowed, typically, to become official judges without some type of formal judicial education, where they must pass standards of clear thinking. Not just anyone can sit on the bench, and start making decisions that affect thousands of other people.We have to write reality-based guidelines, with totally obvious examples, so that anyone could understand them. The wiki-masses don't follow concepts such as "significant coverage" in reliable sources: I must conclude the current WP policies are like wiki-calculus for the masses. They cannot calculate wiki-integrals of the policies to reach a logical conclusion. Hence, the current policies are a failure for coordinating general editors.So, these bogus AfD discussions are such a waste of time, re-hashing misunderstandings as confirmed by popularity votes. We have to write policy essays to explain actual examples to be followed: I don't think there's any other hope. Most people just don't understand the current policy points, no matter how carefully that text is quoted in discussions. They see "NOTINHERITED" and that's the extend of their reading: 2 words is a policy to them. Perhaps they started to read the policy text (yawn) and re-zoned to the 2 words, period.

To be readable, we must list obvious examples, such as the one-event R.M.S. Titanic generating "50" notables. Plus, those examples must be listed in easy-to-read essays (no consensus required), so when we put "WP:BIGEVENT" they know that, historically, big single events have generated numerous notables (e.g.: Lee Harvey Oswald & Jack Ruby in JFK assassination; Charles Manson & Manson family in Sharon Tate/etc. murders). It's the only way to defeat the notion that exceptions, to the intricate policies, must be determined by intense debates of popularity votes. No, instead, big-event notability can be explained by a simple essay of examples. We need those policy essays to shift the mass voting. -