On 8/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Fortunetly not since Wikipedia:WikiLawyering appears to have been writen so it can be abused by rule lawyers. -- geni

On 8/30/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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