On 6/5/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
There is *one* passing comment, made in response to my complaint,
about a neutral article being a defensibly a "good thing", because
then we get on top of the google results and it's better than the
alternatives - I disagree with it, but it's a reasoned position.
Otherwise... not a smidgen of editorial thought. Just an incantation
of an article of faith, a slavish devotion to a meaningless line in
the sand.
Your contention appears to be that every policy should be up for
rediscussion and renegotiation on every single AfD? Wouldn't it be
better to leave AfD for *application* of policy, and have the
philosophising at some central location? I'm not saying your arguments
aren't valid, but to accuse people of "slavishly" applying policy at a
place designed for the application of policy is unfair. That's what
they're supposed to be doing there.
Are we really saying that *because we made up an
arbitrary rule
ourselves*, we get to ignore any form of editorial sense and then
loudly disclaim responsibility for the result? Do people honestly
Kind of. Fix the policy.
Steve