Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/2/09, Ian Woollard
<ian.woollard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
But the IAR policy is clear, if ANY policy,
including BLP stops you
improving the wikipedia then you can override it.
...until someone objects.
The important caveat.
Heh.
That's interesting that the application of a "policy" ("pillar"
even)
that itself is simply a caveat, requires another caveat with regard to
its application.
In any case, the problem lies with both "policies:"
IAR, as everyone here knows is a practical oxymoron, and a relic from
a bygone era of adequate-ness, where a simplistic policy could
substitute for a simple one.
BLP is just a range-specific application of OFFICE and RS -- "reliable
sources" itself being a necessary, but nevertheless idiopathic
stepchild of the [[objectivity (journalism)]] principle (our NPOV),
with a quasi-subjective misnomer in its name.
-Stevertigo