On 8/30/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
So? It's what we call a "wiki". You know
what to do.
- d.
The problems tend to be rather built in. Firstly it produces a
slightly hard to define behaviour that is semi officially "frowned
upon". This allows it to be used as an effective weapon since you can
force your opponent to defend themselves from such accusations rather
than have to deal with whatever the real issue is. In the end anything
related to rules is going to provide more ways to rule lawyer.
Going through the sub issues
1.Using formal legal terms inappropriately regarding Wikipedia policy.
Useful but could be used against those evil people who keep removing
non free images (any rule lawyer who can't argue their way around the
word "inappropriately" isn't worth worrying about).
2.Asserting that technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and
guidelines should override the principles they express.
Has the interesting effect that it allows you to interpret policies
any way you like by claiming you are ignoring technicalities and
enforcing the underlying principles (which is always a difficult one
to disprove).
3.Asserting that technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and
guidelines should override the principles they express.
see above. It also justifies not taking the time to write proper
policy. it also creates problems for the 3 revert rule which is pretty
much all technicality.
Not much to be done about this. Most of it can be delt with by takeing
the position that it is an essay and therefor not binding but that
opens up other problems.
--
geni