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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 18/06/07, Eagle 101
<eagle.wikien.l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.