--- MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Sometimes a little harsh action can go a long way in
teaching.
I feel the same way, but I think that reverts arent so much as "harsh action"
as they are "incivil inaction." Thats a big difference IMHO.
--- Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote:
To exhaustively, regimentedly cite every well-known
fact in every
article would be ugly, unwieldy, and overbearing. But it's equally
obvious that, the bigger and more popular Wikipedia gets, the harder
it is to rely on "obvious" or "ought to" rules which depend on people
being
reasonable.
So are you saying AGF (a subpolicy of CIVIL, (predecessor too, actually)) is out the
window too?
--- Matt Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I do agree by and large that WP:V and WP:CITE can be
used as clubs to
beat one's opponents with. That's the problem with rules and
policies.
Do you agree then that 'beating one's opponents with a club' violates
WP:CIVIL?
-SV
: Wikipedia:Policy difecta : "If its not NPOV or CIVIL, is crap."
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com