Now he's trying to get [[Wikipedia:WikiLawyering]] deleted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikiped ia:WikiLawyering
(Didn't it used to be "Wikilawyering" without the CamelCase interior capital? That seems to have been changed somewhere in the course of it being moved and then moved back.)
On 8/29/06, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
Now he's trying to get [[Wikipedia:WikiLawyering]] deleted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikiped ia:WikiLawyering
...and he forgot to link from the main MFD page.
I just fixed that.
On 29/08/06, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
Now he's trying to get [[Wikipedia:WikiLawyering]] deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wik...
See, this is what I meant when I said that wikilawyering "wikilawyering" was not Wikipedia's Godel number and would not cause Wikipedia to contradict itself, Mediawiki to output "DOES NOT COMPUTE", the server network to explode and the smoking remains to finally be scraped into a small dustpan and sold off to Britannica.
Could someone please speedy-close this one? If process doesn't presently "allow" this, it damn well should.
(Didn't it used to be "Wikilawyering" without the CamelCase interior capital? That seems to have been changed somewhere in the course of it being moved and then moved back.)
O rly? I thought it was previously at the camelcase version when I moved it back.
- d.
On Aug 29, 2006, at 6:25 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 29/08/06, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
Now he's trying to get [[Wikipedia:WikiLawyering]] deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/ Wikipedia:WikiLawyering
See, this is what I meant when I said that wikilawyering "wikilawyering" was not Wikipedia's Godel number and would not cause Wikipedia to contradict itself, Mediawiki to output "DOES NOT COMPUTE", the server network to explode and the smoking remains to finally be scraped into a small dustpan and sold off to Britannica.
Could someone please speedy-close this one? If process doesn't presently "allow" this, it damn well should.
Done, and with a complimentary 24 hour vacation to many urls on Teh Intarwebs that do not end with "&action=edit" for Mr. Awbrey.
Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
On 8/29/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
See, this is what I meant when I said that wikilawyering "wikilawyering" was not Wikipedia's Godel number and would not cause Wikipedia to contradict itself, Mediawiki to output "DOES NOT COMPUTE", the server network to explode and the smoking remains to finally be scraped into a small dustpan and sold off to Britannica.
Fortunetly not since Wikipedia:WikiLawyering appears to have been writen so it can be abused by rule lawyers.
On 29/08/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/29/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
See, this is what I meant when I said that wikilawyering "wikilawyering" was not Wikipedia's Godel number and would not cause Wikipedia to contradict itself, Mediawiki to output "DOES NOT COMPUTE", the server network to explode and the smoking remains to finally be scraped into a small dustpan and sold off to Britannica.
Fortunetly not since Wikipedia:WikiLawyering appears to have been writen so it can be abused by rule lawyers.
So? It's what we call a "wiki". You know what to do.
- d.
On 8/30/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
So? It's what we call a "wiki". You know what to do.
- d.
The problems tend to be rather built in. Firstly it produces a slightly hard to define behaviour that is semi officially "frowned upon". This allows it to be used as an effective weapon since you can force your opponent to defend themselves from such accusations rather than have to deal with whatever the real issue is. In the end anything related to rules is going to provide more ways to rule lawyer.
Going through the sub issues
1.Using formal legal terms inappropriately regarding Wikipedia policy.
Useful but could be used against those evil people who keep removing non free images (any rule lawyer who can't argue their way around the word "inappropriately" isn't worth worrying about).
2.Asserting that technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express.
Has the interesting effect that it allows you to interpret policies any way you like by claiming you are ignoring technicalities and enforcing the underlying principles (which is always a difficult one to disprove).
3.Asserting that technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express.
see above. It also justifies not taking the time to write proper policy. it also creates problems for the 3 revert rule which is pretty much all technicality.
Not much to be done about this. Most of it can be delt with by takeing the position that it is an essay and therefor not binding but that opens up other problems.