Have you read some of the comments on that page's Talk page? They wish eventually to entirely abolish [[WP:IAR]] "and expunge its history."
The idea that "process is important" inherently puts rules and bureaucracy above writing an encyclopaedia - and we are here to write an encyclopaedia, correct? What [[WP:IAR]] states at its root is a principle that is central to Wikipedia - that is to say, that if you're doing what you believe is something that will benefit the encyclopaedia, damn the rules and do it anyway.
The fact that nothing (except image deletions) is permanent on Wikipedia makes [[WP:IAR]] work. If someone doesn't believe that my [[WP:BOLD]] invocation of [[WP:IAR]] was proper, they are free to boldly revert it, or in the case of a deletion, find one of those 700 admins to undelete it, in which case a discussion can begin.
[[WP:IAR]] at its core, is about the fact that it is more beneficial to the encyclopaedia to *do* something than to worry about going through five levels of something Wikipedia is not, namely bureaucracy, before doing it.
Being [[WP:BOLD]], a principle which I think no one would disagree with, often requires its complement, [[WP:IAR]].
-FCYTravis
On 1/18/06 11:23 AM, "geni" geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/18/06, Travis Mason-Bushman travis@gpsports-eng.com wrote:
There's one thing that Tony and I violently agree on: The idea that "process is important" is pernicious and harmful to the creation of an encyclopaedia.
Really? We have tens of thousands of editors. Over 700 admins. Imagain if they all decided to ignore process on a regular basis.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l