On 7/29/06, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter(a)gmail.com> wrote:
That was a joke right? You can't just wait forever
because someone
"might" come. Policies in the real world have to be made in some
finite timespace. Half of wikipedia's problems may indeed come from
the fact that policies are argued over endlessly, through opinions
like yours that the more argument/time and effort spent, the better
the situation will "possibly be". Ever heard of the concept of
diminishing returns, and/or the concept of negative return on
investment.
With the exception of certain core policies laid down by Jimbo / the
Foundation, all other Wikipedia policies and guidelines are subject to
review and possible change. Where's the gain in being crippled by
policy made by a contributing pool of maybe ten people three years ago
that you can't change?
IMO, policies should always be changeable - but should default to not
changing unless real support for a change materialises, not just
because one or two argumentative people don't agree.
-Matt