On 5/27/07, Chris Howie cdhowie@nerdshack.com wrote:
And if there is disagreement, the source and argument must be considered. If the argument is "policy X says we can't use this" then it should be dismissed as wikilawyering. If a rational argument is presented explaining why it damages the encyclopedia, then it should of course be given consideration.
In most cases, that shouldn't be necessary. We create policies because, in the vast majority of cases, following them is a good idea. So we can say, "No, this shouldn't go in as it's not verifiable" each time, rather than having to say "No, this shouldn't go in because it can't be verified against a reliable source, which means that the information inside may be false or misleading, which is bad for the encyclopaedia because we aim to be accurate" (contrived example but you get the idea; it's shorthand). If we can think of a set of situations where obeying the letter of the policy wouldn't make sense, we should alter the policy so it does. Regularly relying on IAR in those situations, means the rules are wrong.