Steve Bennett wrote:
On 7/20/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
wrote:
Take verifiability as an example. This concept is
a direct response to
repeated complaints from the outside world that Wikipedia is not a
reliable source of information. From a strictly objective perspective
Was there a time before the verifiability policy?
It wasn't there when I first came on board in February 2002
verifiability
is a good thing, but it still has a cost. It leads to a
situation where the game is taken over by rules lawyers who can convince
the other players that order is good. This makes it very difficult for
That almost never happens.
Oh! Rules make most people feel comfortable. It makes them feel they
have a chance to win. "Winning" can have a variable definition, and to
many it can be as simple as having articles accepted by the community
without any major changes.
the Calvinball
player to introduce a new rule into the existing game.
No, it happens all the time.
Are they really making major changes to the rules? Of course you can
also have a rule that says that a rule made when nobody is looking is
also a valid rule.
Ec