On 21/05/07, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/21/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> The point is that it needs readability to be
useful.
> In practice at present it's primary use is for editors of questionable
> social skill to use it as a stick for hitting other editors they are
> having an argument with, and is edited as a game of [[Nomic]].
I would strongly disagree with that. While there is
certainly some
[...]
for hitting other editors they are having an argument
with". I think
that this is one of those times when it is hard to see beyond the tiny
minority of people who do nothing but argue and argue all day. They
make the most noise, but they represent only a fraction of the
wikipedia user-base.
Hmm, fair enough. But I was particularly annoyed by practical
problems, e.g. the section on disambig pages, which really was written
as instructions suitable for coding a bot and had demonstrably led to
editors reducing the usefulness and followability of disambig pages to
enforce the guidelines as hard rules.
So phrasing and readability are in fact important.
- d.