On 10/20/09, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/10/20 Ryan Delaney <ryan.dela...@gmail.com>: > > This is an important point. A proper application of IAR should go unnoticed > > -- at least, by everyone except the "rules are rules" folks who memorize the > > laws and are ready to deliver citations for all your transgressions whenever > > you step a quarter inch out of line. > > In an ideal world, that is how things would work. We don't live in an > ideal world. What actually happens is people complain that you having > followed the rules and never get as far as reading your explanation.
What I gather just from a glance is that its not so much an IAR argument as it is a VIE (voting is evil) argument, and he evokes IAR just as a procedural justification. He's right - not that voting itself is evil, but in our context we need and want to make intelligent editorial decisions. That means making qualitative discernements about the voting arguments - not just quantifying votes into a running count. Formally, we don't currently discern according to editor "quality" - we just don't have the means to do so. But we also don't formally make efforts to discern the quality of arguments, and that's why - in spite of it being "evil" - the formal method is still just basic quantification. So the question is, how do we aggregate and sort arguments such that we can apply a meta process for quickly discerning good, valid, arguments, from those that aren't? Other than "IAR" that is? -Steven _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
