Jason Potkanski wrote:
As the creator of the brainstorming page, I must first apologize for dare thinking about tinkering with the anarchist's prime directive.
The policy is a philosophical policy, not a literal one. I don't expect the average wikipedia editor to understand philosophy. It is much harder to explain than NPOV and NPOV goes to great lengths to explain it.
Leaving IAR as a piece of scripture is unacceptable. When looking at religious text, most people do not take the bible literally but figuratively. We can not just say it has "deep and subtle meaning," we must also offer a context that guides a reader to make their own conclusions.
This isn't "instruction creep" ... it is basic education.
Save the holy verses for religious texts and rhetoric for dev/null . On Wikipedia, sane consensus-built uniform policy pages please.
I must commend the writer for confessing to his inability to understand philosophy.
"Ignore All Rules" is not a policy; it is a principle. This is not a matter of taking the WikiBible literally or figuratively. The most profound biblical principles or those of other religions are said in very simple words that get right to the point. To say that "we must also offer a context that guides a reader to make their own conclusions," creates a paradox, because by offering a guide to interpreting the principle we put the reader on the way to reaching the conclusions that we want him to reach. We do much better by stating a principle, guiding the reader by our actions, and being willing to adjust our views if the newbie presents a good idea.
Uniform policy pages impose stagnation, they make change with the times very difficult, and they insult the intelligence of those who may not yet have contributed to Wikipedia. In another context that kind of thing gave us the copyright laws that we all love so well.
Ec