jf_wikipedia(a)mac.com wrote:
On May 10, 2006, at 10:18 AM, Cheney Shill wrote:
Basically, it's an argument that you can apply
policy however the
current majority of an article sees fit.
My understanding is different. Editor's consensus cannot be used to
bypass policy
See:
"NPOV is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The
other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original
research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of
material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three
policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in
isolation from one other, and editors should therefore try to
familiarize themselves with all three. The three policies are also
non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by
editors' consensus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV
I am missing something?
No, except that we agree completely. I'm not, nor have I ever argued, that consensus
should bypass policy. I'm simply repeating the claim made by Fastfission and the
majority of admins and users I've had contact with while editing that consensus is
more important than policy. Fastfission seemed to be paraphrasing the beginning of the
consensus guideline that says "Wikipedia works by building consensus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus I'm not sure when that was put in or
if it was snuck in at some point, but given what the rest of the guideline states, not to
mention policies, it's definitely taken out of context. Maybe the fix is simply
removing that sentence. This view seems so prevalent, however, it probably wouldn't
be taken seriously unless Jimmy himself emailed every admin with an attached photo of a
clue bat.
Anyway, I'm open to suggestions on how to solve it.~~~~Pro-Lick
---------------------------------
Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase