[WikiEN-l] Corporate vanity policy enforcement

Sun Oct 1 21:44:54 UTC 2006

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 11:01:49 +0100, "David Mestel"
<david.mestel at gmail.com> wrote:

>I don't think that "implied discretion" is a good idea long-term -
>it's better to codify it in policy so that everything is consistent
>and in the open.  Apart from anything else, it's kind of inadvertantly
>biting the newbies when stuff happens for reasons which aren't
>explained.

Unfortunately you cannot either legislate or codify Clue.

Actually for my money policy *is* close to perfect: if a subject is
not just unverified but, for all practical purposes, *unverifiable*
from reliable sources, it has to go.  If this is unambiguous, further
debate is unnecessary.  If it's possible that sources could be found,
or it's not your specialist area, then a debate makes sense.
Everything else is just discussion of what are the symptoms of such an
article might be.

Needless to say I am an evil rouge admin and a heartless deletionist.
Some users have spent long and tedious hours debating precisely which
part of policy covers the deletion of an article consisting of one
sentence which is already included in another article and with a title
which does not meet the manual of style.

Guy (JzG)
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG