Wikipedia is a wiki community foremost and an encyclopedia second. The
3RR is an easy rule to follow so there is no reason not to. If
"professional historians like Jtdril and adam Carr" would just learn to
follow the rules, they would not get blocked. There is no reason that
anyone ever has to break the 3RR, if it is a valid reversion, the
community will come to the rescue. There certainly is nothing stopping
them from seeking help from others to avoid breaking the 3RR. The fact
of the matter is this group of "professionals" feels for some reason
that it should get special treatment when it comes to breaking the
rules. They must eventually realize that in an internet community like
Wikipedia it doesn't matter who they are if they can't follow the
community standards for interaction.
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 06:16:11 +0000, Abe Sokolov <abesokolov(a)hotmail.com>
wrote:
Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen at shaw.ca wrote:
Actually, IMO at least it seems perfectly reasonable to enforce the 3RR
even against people who are making reverts that when made in isolation
would be considered "reasonable."
That's actually my point. For Wikipedia to be managable, procedure
must be
followed and policies must be enforced. Thus, the
statements that I'd
quoted
were **unfortunately** reasonable. The problem is the
nature of the
procedure making this approach reasonable.
IMO needs radical change, along the lines of Larry Sanger's
suggestions. The
way things are now, certain trolls flourish while
professional
historians
and
Adam Carr get blocked. Some bold structural changes
would serve to
correct
this problem.
-172
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
Michael Becker