As for BOLD, I have never seen it cited for good ends; most good editing doesn't need it. It is usually used as the attempted justification for edits against the consensus. Personally I'd rather remove it from the guidelines altogether, but it is referred to so many times that perhaps it should be written in a way that would make it less likely to be misused. I see there's an active discussion there.
On 6/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/06/07, Eagle 101 eagle.wikien.l@gmail.com wrote:
Ignore all Rules is common sense written into policy. The concept behind it (at least to me) is that if ignoring the rules help you improve the encyclopaedia (and that is your intent when you ignored the rules), there is a decent chance that you are doing something right, even if it does not meet our policy XYZ, section 3, subsection c. How it is to be used is another matter, when ignoring the rules you probably have a decent rational behind why doing so improves the encyclopaedia, otherwise its hard to justify should someone ask. Merely shouting IAR when you don't like a particular rule is not useful. But if you ignore the rules and the net benefit is to the encyclopaedia (yes that thing we are trying to build ya know ;) ) then its likely a useful action (edit whatever). Ignore all rules is intended to be hard to pin down, to avoid codifying how to ignore all rules ;).
Let me pimp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PRO once more.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l