From: daniwo59(a)aol.com
Frankly, I never supported the 3RR, either the first time it was
implemented, or this, the second time. I certainly oppose the idea that it
takes
precedence, or is even on an equal footing, with the goal of creating an
_accurate_,
NPOV, open-source encyclopedia. Comments equating it with that are
misguided. 3RR was put in place, not as an objective in itself, but as a
means to an
end, that end being the creation of an accurate corpus of human knowledge.
And
yet, while people are willing to block for violating the 3RR, how many
people are willing to block for pushing POV or adding inaccurate
information
consistently? That is a problem.
So I reiterate: 3RR is not a goal of Wikipedia. In an ideal world, it would
not even be necessary. It is merely a means to an end.
True. However, I've seen instances where editors have reverted pages 14
times in half a day, against the will of a half dozen editors, with no
sanction then or now. Enforcement of the 3RR has put an end to that kind of
nonsense. POV pushing has always been a problem, but I've seen no
indication that 3RR enforcement has made the POV pushing problem any worse
than it was before, and it has demonstrably helped ameliorate egregious
edit-warring problems.
Jay.