On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:03 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
When some people started trying to use the BLP policies to cover the deceased, I realised that not even the most precise wording could protect against the lack of common sense. When some people took the arb com restriction during their discussion of episodes and characters to refer to exactly that type of articles only, and succeeded in establishing it, this confirmed my view. When a respected admin argued at Deletion Review that speedy deletion policy covers removing duplicate articles, I realised we need both exact policy , and the will to back it up.
This seems to be a constant idea at Wikipedia (and elsewhere); "If only the rules were exact and complete, life would be perfect, because we wouldn't have to rely on common sense and good judgment anymore."
IMO, you can't get there. It's impossible to get the rules exact unless you're strictly in a world of mathematics and absolutely defined meanings; there is always ambiguity and there are always edge cases. It's even less feasible for the rules to be complete, meaning that they produce an acceptable result in all circumstances including unforeseen ones.
Stupidity will always occur; good sense will always be required; good judgment will always be necessary; and sometimes arguments will happen because there will be disagreement about what exactly is the right thing to do.
Wikipedia has too many computerheads thinking that the world could be solved with a good algorithm and a smattering of code. It's a compelling fantasy for many, but it does not work in reality.
-Matt