Gregory Maxwell wrote:
If we were to try to write a rule which explained the conditions we'd find that it would need to become nearly as long as the entire body of meta-discussion on Wikipedia before it did a good job at helping the reader tell if their action would be accepted or not ... even long standing and respected users sometimes have a hard time guessing how the community will react.
We've pretty well all had these moments.
Telling users to avoid doing something and then saying that that doesn't prevent legitimate uses because it isn't a ban, is expecting everyone who reads the policies to be a Wikilawyer. This is absurd. Policies need to be comprehensible by ordinary people.
No. It's a hope that no one is a wikilawyer.
The rules are to help people quickly understand what is generally accepted and expected. A suggestion to avoid does exactly that... and only a wikilaywer wants rules to be more than that.
If the rule says you should avoid, but you do it, and the community does not agree.. This isn't time for you to start arguing rules.. this is the time for you to realize that it's the communities position which is actually binding.
Well put. The wording "avoid" leaves room to test the waters. If someone objects it's a good time to start looking for a constructive compromise.
Ec