Board Thread:Wiki Improvement/@comment-4748628-20150525013604/@comment-4029377-20150526051748

Gamedezyner wrote:

Shadow-Flare wrote: the idea's there but, as jared basically said, it seems far to easy to abuse it I actually trust the community we have here to not vote off things that aren't absurd or ridiculous. Everyone seems pretty defensive of creativity and I doubt they would all attack a sue-ish character just for that.

I'm going to be blunt as well,  from what I've this community has done and I would have to disagree with you. While I do believe there are some old and ridiculous articles, (hotdog the hedgehog? Really?) I believe this is basically allowing admins who don't like someone else work for one reason or another to force it to a popular vote in which many admins will win basically by peer pressure. I agree with Smash that perhaps there should be that you either go after inactive articles or ask perhaps state what is wrong in the "quality" of said article so that the user may have time to mend the error. Stating specifically what the actual problem is, (and this has to be a majority problem, not just one the admin made up or has a pet peeve over) would perhaps give the author time to mend the article to where it is validated.

To basically call this or that article "crap" and force others to agree with you is bias, there should be a notification of what is wrong with the article and a grace period for the user to fix said article.