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
Blair, I regret to inform you that I'm going to have to withdraw from the
discussion at this point, because of self-imposed feeding restrictions.
Good luck,
Jay.