On 21/05/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/21/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The point is that it needs readability to be useful. In practice at present it's primary use is for editors of questionable social skill to use it as a stick for hitting other editors they are having an argument with, and is edited as a game of [[Nomic]].
I would strongly disagree with that. While there is certainly some
[...]
for hitting other editors they are having an argument with". I think that this is one of those times when it is hard to see beyond the tiny minority of people who do nothing but argue and argue all day. They make the most noise, but they represent only a fraction of the wikipedia user-base.
Hmm, fair enough. But I was particularly annoyed by practical problems, e.g. the section on disambig pages, which really was written as instructions suitable for coding a bot and had demonstrably led to editors reducing the usefulness and followability of disambig pages to enforce the guidelines as hard rules.
So phrasing and readability are in fact important.
- d.