Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Oldak Quill wrote:
If you propose an exemption where the policies conflict, I'm sure most would support you.
So a newcomer sees 20 paragraphs about how you're not supposed to edit your own article, and then a sentence saying otherwise.
I don't think that'll work unless you make the exemption prominent enough that it doesn't seem like an afterthought to anyone reading the page. And that I don't think is possible. Ideally, we should soften the language that implies a near-absolute prohibition, but nobody will stand for that.
The balancing concern is the eleven zillion people who believe they have a divine right to control anything said about them and theirs, and far more time and energy to devote to a single article than we do.
Our policies unfortunately serve a dual role: they are guidance for those who want it, and a stick for those who refuse the guidance. It seems like the two needs are in conflict here.
William