On Oct 27, 2008, at 2:37 PM, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 10/27/2008 11:36:43 A.M. Pacific
Daylight Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
Leave it to local consensus of editors on a given article, taking the
specific situation on its merits instead of consulting with an
inflexible rule.>>
----------------------------------------
I think the local editors did that.
Are you stating that in this case, what was done was the proper
thing to
have been done in this case?
I think it's impossible to say that the local editors did that when we
have empowered a segment of those local editors with an inflexible
policy rule that can be swung around mindlessly to thwomp any attempt
to apply subject-specific reasoning.
Or, to be blunter, we no longer have a functional system of local
consensus on Wikipedia because of the excessive power of rigid rules
in the dialogue. As long as robo-policy has significant power in the
discussion, we will continue to have insufficient ability to generate
pragmatic consensus.
I'll sidestep the specifics of Lanier beyond saying that the version
of the article he objected to was crap, and at least two of his
objections were absolutely spot-on. I have not evaluated beyond that,
but certainly he was not wrong to object.
-Phil