On 6/18/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
By discussing the *possibility*
that it could ever exist on Wikipedia, we were giving the wrong
impression about the purpose for which Wikipedia exists, and saying
that we don't care about our core policies.
This is nonsense. One should be able to discuss anything on Wikipedia,
even things which are plainly bad ideas. The idea that some things are
"beyond discussion" is the sort of weak nonsense that people who don't
or can't engage with others throw out as a justification for shutting
down debate, which you seem to make a habit of.
Beyond that, discussing the possibility is a useful heuristic, as
others have pointed out, for deciding exactly where to draw the line.
If we all agree that a Conservative Noticeboard is a bad idea, do we
necessarily think that a LGBT Noticeboard is a bad idea? What about a
Political Noticeboard? What about an Evolution Noticeboard? Most of
the "Restore" votes on the DRV were made not because they thought the
board should exist, but because it was out-of-process and that full
discussion had not taken place. Though if you think that "discussion"
itself is a dangerous thing, I suppose you'd fine those invalid
reasons. I think you have far too little faith in the Wikipedia Way
and far too little appreciation for how to be involved in a large
organization.
I think there's more evidence to support the idea that a few arrogant
admins can do a lot more long term damage to Wikipedia's productivity
than a few discussions.
I'm not a fan of "Wikilawyering", if that's the term we want to use
for asking politely that others follow rules and guidelines developed
by the community, even if it is not as expedient than just breaking
them. But I do believe that communities function better when there are
reliable rules, when actions do not appear arbitrary, and when it is
clear that people are not being shut down simply because of their
political opinions. In this case none of that is clear in the
slightest.
FF