[WikiEN-l] WP:COI violation

Sun Nov 12 17:41:28 UTC 2006

Ken Arromdee wrote:
> It doesn't matter what he thinks avoidance is, but what he thinks
> the policy-maker meant by it. 

Sure, but...

> ...anyone who reads that will interpret the *intentions of the writer*
> to be that the act is not allowed.

That doesn't necessarily follow.

> Policies are full of attempts to state things in "less harsh" language
> that could easily have been said directly, but weren't.

Are they?

> A reader would just think this is another one.

If I read, "You should avoid doing X", I would assume the writer
meant, "you should generally not do X" or "you should do X only
under exceptional circumstances" or "you shouldn't do X unless
you know what you're doing".  (I'd assume those interpretations
anyway, but I'd *especially* assume them in an environment that
includes WP:IAR.)  If X really was forbidden or prohibited,
I would expect the policy to say, "you should not do X", or
"you must not do X", or "X is forbidden", or "X is prohibited",
or "X is illegal".