JAY JG wrote:
From:
"Blair P. Houghton" <blair(a)houghton.net>
JAY JG wrote:
I hadn't heard "Be bold" referred
to as Wikipedia's "prime
directive" before; I'm not sure everyone here would agree. In any
event, while I don't know the details of this particular case, it
amazes me how often people attempting to make major, usually
contentious, and often highly POV re-writes to articles cite "Be
bold", yet fail to note that the majority of that policy is devoted
to when you *should not* "Be bold". In particular, much of the
policy clearly points out that on disputed issues and controversial
subjects one should, instead, get consensus on Talk: pages first.
Clairvoyance isn't my strongest skill. I don't know who will
complain until I do what I have a right to do. And I suspect I'm
"only human" in that regard, as is everyone else.
Little clairvoyance is needed to know that the very first time you are
reverted, it means that your edits are contentious and disputed. And
it's a bad sign when people start taking about what they "have a right
to do" on Wikipedia; as far as I know, editing Wikipedia is still not
covered under the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or similar legislation.
You ought to read them sometime. They don't list all of your rights.
I believe
we are straying into "argument from silence" logical
fallacy territory here.
It's the basis for most of the Wikipedia. What doesn't get munged is
accepted. And if you see a problem, you fix it. Has a lot to do
with the way life works, too. Which is one of the attractive
features of the place.
As soon as you are reverted, the "argument from silence" is obviously
no longer correct.
And then we get into the "argument from self-imposed dictatorship".
Cooperation is something that comes from both sides; it cannot be
unilaterally imposed by "Bold" individuals.
Tell that to the guy who reverted me, hollering "consensus!" from the
back of his mule, then having me jailed for arguing the point, then
including everything I added
Referring to one's opponents on Talk: pages as "juvenile delinquents"
and oneself as the "teacher" is a particularly bad strategy for
getting cooperation.
I prefer to interpret the facts as showing nobody was trying to
cooperate with me.
(but retaining a bit of stuff that is soon to be
gone anyway).
This statement is an ominous sign.
Nope. Just a statement that I know the truth and the truth always wins
when consensus is at stake.
--Blair