On 22 December 2011 18:10, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
And for the general problem is something I've often noted: Wikipedia is set up to force people to follow the rules.
Interesting debating point, but I think the comment is ahistorical. It is more accurate, IMO, to note that "slavish" rule-following on enWP is a characteristic of non-"old school" editors. It may well be that the community as a whole has shifted its centre of gravity on this issue. (The point covers both the curatorial and disciplinary functions on the site, so I'd make the case for parsing it further.)
And the more you use "it's in the rules" as a club to hit bad users with, the more others can use it as a club to force bad ideas through; there's just no defense to "what I want follows the rules". You see this all the time for BLPs: "Don't you have any empathy? We're hurting a real person." "You're just trying to distract us from this rule. Your own personal feelings aren't an excuse to ignore our policies..."
We have IAR, and "slavishness" might be called IIAR, so it should be ignored as a guideline (IIIAR should trump IIAR). This could all get silly but according to some logical stuff, that has been known since about 1920, I^4AR is probably no different from I^2AR.
In other words, if the writ of "ignore all rules" no longer runs because the community thinks of it as too retro, there can still be some meta-principle about not following the wrong path just because rules indicate it. "Rule-bound" is like "muscle-bound", a pejorative, and rightly so.
BLPs are of course an obvious place where it may be hardest to argue that rules should be ignored.
Charles
On 12/23/11 7:27 AM, Charles Matthews wrote:
On 22 December 2011 18:10, Ken Arromdeearromdee@rahul.net wrote:
And the more you use "it's in the rules" as a club to hit bad users with, the more others can use it as a club to force bad ideas through; there's just no defense to "what I want follows the rules".
Given the jungle of Wiki rules there is likely a rule somewhere that says the opposite. Tracking it down is the stuff of lawyers, or at least can waste a lot of time. Rules work well when it's truly a question of bad users. For others they generate chaos.
You see this all the time for BLPs: "Don't you have any empathy? We're hurting a real person." "You're just trying to distract us from this rule. Your own personal feelings aren't an excuse to ignore our policies..."
Just like Assange was hurting real people with Wikileaks.
We have IAR, and "slavishness" might be called IIAR, so it should be ignored as a guideline (IIIAR should trump IIAR). This could all get silly but according to some logical stuff, that has been known since about 1920, I^4AR is probably no different from I^2AR.
A convergent or divergent series?
In other words, if the writ of "ignore all rules" no longer runs because the community thinks of it as too retro, there can still be some meta-principle about not following the wrong path just because rules indicate it. "Rule-bound" is like "muscle-bound", a pejorative, and rightly so.
Follow the Tao of Wiki.
BLPs are of course an obvious place where it may be hardest to argue that rules should be ignored.
BLPs need to be treated as the exception to the general rule.
Ec
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011, Charles Matthews wrote:
And the more you use "it's in the rules" as a club to hit bad users with, the more others can use it as a club to force bad ideas through; there's just no defense to "what I want follows the rules". You see this all the time for BLPs: "Don't you have any empathy? We're hurting a real person." "You're just trying to distract us from this rule. Your own personal feelings aren't an excuse to ignore our policies..."
We have IAR
IAR doesn't help. IAR is useful only when you don't need it; if everyone is reasonable, you can ignore rules. But if there's a conflict between two sides, and one wants to obey the rules and one wants to ignore them, the side that wants to obey them wins every time.
Besides, IAR has a problem for BLPs. It says the rules can be ignored to improve the encyclopedia. Helping a BLP subject doesn't improve the encyclopedia (and yes, I've seen this come into effect). So you can't use IAR-or at least, you face an unnecessary hurdle in using it.
BLPs are of course an obvious place where it may be hardest to argue that rules should be ignored.
Yes, but that can be bad as well--it also is hard to ignore rules *for the purpose of helping the BLP subject*.