[WikiEN-l] need to work out clear policies on MANDATORY and OPTIONAL rules on WP

[Sam Korn]

On 11/18/05, Tom Cadden <thomcadden at yahoo.ie> wrote:
> Setting aside sarcasm, it appears you still can't grasp that *anyone*
> might disagree with you.
>
>  No. I expect professionalism not amateurishness. This is meant to be an encyclopædia, not a colouring book.

Hang on, are you trying to say that Côte d'Ivoire looks
*amateurish*???  I would hardly describe Britannica, World Book, the
US government, and such organisations as amateurish.  This isn't an
argument for Côte d'Ivoire, by the way, just saying how ridiculous
your point is.

The truth is that this part of Wikipedia policy is written in a way
that makes looking amateurish highly likely.

> The day Wikipedia puts policy above community is the day I leave.
>
>  The day when Wikipedia decides that it is simply a place for people to chat on talk pages and is not a professionally run encyclopædia is the day when most people will leave. You don't seem to have noticed but a lot of people on Wikipedia do kind of think things like accuracy, standards, NPOV and verifiability matter more than treating the site as some sort of fancy-coloured chat room.

That's a strawman.  I never attacked NPOV or any of the other tenets
you mentioned.

NPOV is vital to the community.  Verifiability is intrinsic to NPOV. 
No-one would say that accuracy isn't a good thing.  But naming
conventions?  *Naming conventions*?  Are we really going to say that a
naming convention is more important than the community?

Come off it.

--
Sam