On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 6:58 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Phil Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
So basically, we have a phrase that mandates the violation of NPOV on a host of articles, that was inserted without discussion, and that has been controversial in every subsequent discussion. But we keep it, because it's "consensus."
Have you tried suggesting this change on the talk page and advertising the discussion at various relevant noticeboards and other project talk pages?
Carcharoth
Have you tried just removing the ridiculous clause that creates this 'paradox'? Or, better yet, just using the source anyway? Sometimes after all the squabbling over the years that makes it seem like a deadlocked controversy, all it really takes is standing up and pointing out when somethings just dumb. And doing the not dumb thing. And that makes policy. IAR is there for a reason... not to be silly, or meta, but because sometimes, when something keeps us from improving the encyclopedia for long enough we get fed up with it, we have a way to just step over it (the encyclopedia being the product of our core project values, not interplay between clauses of policy that gets progressively more wonky every year).
There is no conflict between the policies. There's a conflict with whats written. That is not the same thing.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l