On 1/18/06, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org> wrote:
WP:IAR is one of the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia.
It wasn't original hard policy
An attack on it is an attack on the basic structure
of our project to create an
encyclopedia.
No it isn't. [[WP:IRA]] is broken. It was broken the first time
someone tried to cite in thier defence. [[WP:IRA]] is not a defence if
you decide to ignore the rules. The only defence for doing that is to
be able to show it was the right thing to do.
Ah, so you're planning to abolish WP:AGF, too.
Well I don't like makeing assumptions. But what has assumeing good
faith got to do with anything? Ignoreing the rules means you think you
know better than the people who put together the rules and those that
accepted them. If you are right then good for you. If you are wrong
then the issue of actions tending to have consiquenes kicks in
Is WP:NPOV third on your list?
No there is a seperate wiki for that
Wrong. Admins are as encouraged to be as bold as any other editor. The
word "admin" does not appear on WP:BOLD at all, let alone as an exception.
[[WP:BOLD]] covers article content only. Admins are free to be bold as
editors. WP:BOLD clearly does not encourage them to be bold as admins.
--
geni