Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Wikipedia isn't consistent.. We shouldn't let
the fact the thousands
of things are done wrong be an excuse for doing things incorrectly.
You are presupposing that counterexamples are inherently examples of
things "done wrong." The problem is that this is far from obvious in
many cases. One can't dismiss the issue so easily.
We accept open submission so if we allow the existance
of examples in
wikipedia to drive our standards we will, in effect, have no
standards. I'm sure that would make some people, people editing for
their own self-interests, happy but it would not be good.
Hey now, assume good faith. It's not just people who are editing "for
their own self-interests" that prefer as inclusive a set of standards as
possible under our policies.