Okay, I'll just explain this poll.

First off, I think that we've done a really good job in dealing with unwanted people who visit the forum, and a big part of this has been the creation of extra boards like Tar Pit and Feather Barrel, Wikipedia Review Review, and then having secret forums like Anti Wikimedia and Moderator forum, which have really helped to in the first case discuss some issues without annoying trolls, and in the second case to talk about users here in private. I also agree with the Lounge being great for something off topic. And this one here for giving information is useful too. Its great and works well. And now I am sure that we can deal with the likes of what we had to deal with before, when we would all agree it got quite out of control at one point.

So first off, I'd just like to say that I think that the "Waste of Space" forum really serves no purpose, as we have the "Tar Pit and Feather Barrel" as well. Why have a separate forum? Its really superfluous to our needs. Just move the posts to Tar Pit. I think that's pretty simple.

The next thing is that Wikipedia Discussion is our main reason for existing, yet that's only 1 forum while we have like 10 other forums for other things. So I think that we should split it up.

Now, this would be experimental, so just 1 at first, so I am just suggesting some ideas here. You can rename them, and so forth, or even come up with one of your own. I just threw those ones out.

I'll just go over each in turn:

Wikipedia in the press

Things like the Nature Review, the Congress staffers, the Seigenthaler incident and so forth are what people think of when they think of Wikipedia, and these issues should be mentioned in Wikipedia Review. Whilst it wouldn't get many posts, this would be without a doubt very serious, very current, relevant discussion. It would help us to be taken seriously. The big problem with this is that the Wikipedia Signpost and Village Pump News already deals with this kind of thing, so it'd be rehashed a fair bit. We also wouldn't have much new to present.

Administrator/Arbitration Committee Actions

We always seem to be talking about Administrators doing the wrong thing. From unilaterally deleting userboxes to people getting put on the Arbitration Committee after not being voted on, to censoring posts, to creation of Arbitration Clerks, and then of course the unfair bans and ridiculous Arb Com decisions, this seems to be our main topic of discussion even. One of the problems is that if this was a sub forum, what would be left for the "general" forum? The more serious discussion? Yet this is one of the more serious aspects.

Jimbo Wales

Naturally, in any company, the person running it has an awful lot to do with the company. So any discussion relating to Jimbo, from his affiliations with Google to his public speaking arrangements, to his involvement with porn through Bomis, to his ideas about Userboxes or starving children in Africa could be mentioned here. One big problem is that it could be perceived as personal attacks, and, if not closely monitored, could quickly become a case of libel. And the moderation may be more effort than its worth.

Broad criticisms

The Wikipedia faithful would love it if this was all we ever had, since they have already compiled a list of all of the broad criticisms and their standard responses. Then they could just write perpetual posts to their answers and become like robots and not even have to treat us seriously. Of course, we could go beyond what they say, get rid of their censorship and criticise their stock standard answers, and include new broad criticisms. But in the end, this would help Wikipedia more than hurt them.

Articles

The bad articles on Wikipedia are a big part of what makes Wikipedia bad. From the unreferenced pieces to the vandalised pieces to the vanity bits or the slanderous bits to the totally ridiculous. The POV pushing, the inaccuracy, and so forth. Wikipedia's own "Wikipedia: Review" focusses purely on articles, and we could just do our version of that, just looking at the negative more than the positive. However, if my attempts at creating a regular "Article of the Weak" are any guide, there's not really much support for such a forum.

The Cabal

We don't talk about the cabal all that much, but enough for it to have its own separate piece. More than anything, however, this would be to prove a point. So many critics of Wikipedia Review talk about how there is a WR cabal, and if we can talk about the cabal, who might be in it, and cabal-like actions, then we can go in to some depth. One problem, however, is the temptation to turn it in to a work of humour, which might not be too helpful. Wikipedia faithful may see the existence of such a forum as a reason to bash this forum more. But then again, we might like this.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. Vote/comment away. And if someone wants to make a new forum just off the bat, then do so.