Just throwing this out there for discussion, integrate with existing threads if needed:
Statement 1:
Ideally, Wikipedia should be developed to the point where
1) it is the canonical reference resource on the web. 2) a) such that articles reference other articles as sources for the current discussion, or b) articles should only reference outside sources and never other articles.
Accordingly there is some disparity between those who think Wikipedia
a) should be well cited by its researchers. b) should be well written by its editors. ...where neither is mutually exclusive and neither has "official" status.
There are a number of modalities for how people behave and operate on Wikipedia with respect to what they do on Wikipedia. I think disparities between these modalities have led people to think along extreme lines about the value and values of Wikipedia, some of which appear to violate core policy. A canonical example of this was IAR, which was basically a loophole which basically claimed itself to be above even NPOV and CIVIL.
Re-examining that policy led to its deprecation, and I believe other policies, in order to be taken seriously need to be put in a formal place within the policy heirarchy. In this respect, I view Wikipedia bi-polar way where on the one hand we have content disputes which are are ultimately guided by NPOV/objectivity, and behavioural disputes which are ultimately deferential to CIVIL/civility. Where there is a choice between these two appears to end up becoming a contest between free willed independents who aspire to excellence, and the culture of beauraucrats who aspire to process and formality.
Conclusion: Even if these groups represent a somewhat fundamental divisions in real society, they should not operate on Wikipedia in a mutually exclusive way.
-Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com