Wikipedia is a wiki community foremost and an encyclopedia second. The 3RR is an easy rule to follow so there is no reason not to. If "professional historians like Jtdril and adam Carr" would just learn to follow the rules, they would not get blocked. There is no reason that anyone ever has to break the 3RR, if it is a valid reversion, the community will come to the rescue. There certainly is nothing stopping them from seeking help from others to avoid breaking the 3RR. The fact of the matter is this group of "professionals" feels for some reason that it should get special treatment when it comes to breaking the rules. They must eventually realize that in an internet community like Wikipedia it doesn't matter who they are if they can't follow the community standards for interaction.
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 06:16:11 +0000, Abe Sokolov abesokolov@hotmail.com wrote:
Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen at shaw.ca wrote:
Actually, IMO at least it seems perfectly reasonable to enforce the 3RR even against people who are making reverts that when made in isolation would be considered "reasonable."
That's actually my point. For Wikipedia to be managable, procedure
must be
followed and policies must be enforced. Thus, the statements that I'd
quoted
were **unfortunately** reasonable. The problem is the nature of the procedure making this approach reasonable.
IMO needs radical change, along the lines of Larry Sanger's
suggestions. The
way things are now, certain trolls flourish while professional
historians
like Jtdril (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jtdirl#3RR_block)
and
Adam Carr get blocked. Some bold structural changes would serve to
correct
this problem.
-172
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l