On 12/23/11 7:27 AM, Charles Matthews wrote: > On 22 December 2011 18:10, Ken Arromdee<arrom...@rahul.net> wrote: > >> And the more you use "it's in the >> rules" as a club to hit bad users with, the more others can use it as a >> club to force bad ideas through; there's just no defense to "what I want >> follows the rules".
Given the jungle of Wiki rules there is likely a rule somewhere that says the opposite. Tracking it down is the stuff of lawyers, or at least can waste a lot of time. Rules work well when it's truly a question of bad users. For others they generate chaos. >> You see this all the time for BLPs: "Don't you have any empathy? >> We're hurting a real person." "You're just trying to distract us from this >> rule. Your own personal feelings aren't an excuse to ignore our >> policies..." Just like Assange was hurting real people with Wikileaks. > We have IAR, and "slavishness" might be called IIAR, so it should be > ignored as a guideline (IIIAR should trump IIAR). This could all get silly > but according to some logical stuff, that has been known since about 1920, > I^4AR is probably no different from I^2AR. A convergent or divergent series? > In other words, if the writ of "ignore all rules" no longer runs because > the community thinks of it as too retro, there can still be some > meta-principle about not following the wrong path just because rules > indicate it. "Rule-bound" is like "muscle-bound", a pejorative, and rightly > so. Follow the Tao of Wiki. > BLPs are of course an obvious place where it may be hardest to argue that > rules should be ignored. BLPs need to be treated as the exception to the general rule. Ec _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
