Isn't "do what's right" the same as "assume good faith and assume the assumption of good faith" ?
The no-mans-land between "don't try to inflict malicious harm" and "report evidence-based statements" is a big fat gray one.
In a message dated 7/1/2009 11:17:48 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, arromdee@rahul.net writes:
This is about IAR, you know. IAR is inherently about using personal judgment; if we modify IAR so that IAR may be used to do the right thing, we should *not* define "right" or even assume that it has one definition.
**************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Isn't "do what's right" the same as "assume good faith and assume the assumption of good faith" ?
No, because in this context, "do what's right" means "you may ignore rules for reasons other than the ones just listed". (It only lists improving and maintaining the encyclopedia; protecting people is not listed.)
I suppose you could word it to say "assume good faith" instead while achieving the same effect, but it would be very awkward wording. Feel free to suggest better wording.