On 9/19/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
I haven't followed this whole thread, so this point may have been amply made already, but:
*Phil did not say he was going to violate policy.*He said he was going to ignore process, and there's a crucial difference. The speculation is that simply doing the right thing, even in ignorance of process, will be in substantial accordance with it (or at least, with core policy) 90% of the time anyway. And for the other 10%, the possibility that the process is misguided or incomplete, and the existence of IAR, ought to about cover it.
(Phil didn't claim those 90/10 numbers; I just made them up.)
Problem is that did state he was going to ignore a number of policies. [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]] for example or [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy]].
Is Phil getting smeared now? I can't say I'm surprised. To the process wonk, process is the most important thing there is, way more important than the goals of the project it's supposed to support. Denying or disavowing the sacred process is the most cardinal of sins.
Interesting strawman you've got there. It's either a strawman or an irrelevance if you are making a general statement about a group you have defined as "process wonks" you have failed to provide evidence of their involvement. If you are talking about me (you know the guy who was accused of smearing Phil) then the accusation would probably work better if I hadn't at some point or another ignored almost every process on wikipedia. I however generally had a pretty good idea which process I was ignoring and why it existed.
I don't deny that Phil's declaration was provocative. It calls to mind Colonel Cathcart's objection to Yossarian's attitude: "What if everyone felt that way?" But Yossarian's retort is equally apt: "Then I'd certainly be a fool not to."
Yossarian's retort appears to be an appeal to popularity logical fallacy.