Have you read some of the comments on that page's Talk page? They wish
eventually to entirely abolish [[WP:IAR]] "and expunge its history."
The idea that "process is important" inherently puts rules and bureaucracy
above writing an encyclopaedia - and we are here to write an encyclopaedia,
correct? What [[WP:IAR]] states at its root is a principle that is central
to Wikipedia - that is to say, that if you're doing what you believe is
something that will benefit the encyclopaedia, damn the rules and do it
anyway.
The fact that nothing (except image deletions) is permanent on Wikipedia
makes [[WP:IAR]] work. If someone doesn't believe that my [[WP:BOLD]]
invocation of [[WP:IAR]] was proper, they are free to boldly revert it, or
in the case of a deletion, find one of those 700 admins to undelete it, in
which case a discussion can begin.
[[WP:IAR]] at its core, is about the fact that it is more beneficial to the
encyclopaedia to *do* something than to worry about going through five
levels of something Wikipedia is not, namely bureaucracy, before doing it.
Being [[WP:BOLD]], a principle which I think no one would disagree with,
often requires its complement, [[WP:IAR]].
-FCYTravis
On 1/18/06 11:23 AM, "geni" <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/18/06, Travis Mason-Bushman
<travis(a)gpsports-eng.com> wrote:
There's one thing that Tony and I violently
agree on: The idea that "process
is important" is pernicious and harmful to the creation of an encyclopaedia.
Really? We have tens of thousands of editors. Over 700 admins. Imagain
if they all decided to ignore process on a regular basis.
--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l