-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
geni stated for the record:
On 1/18/06, Travis Mason-Bushman travis@gpsports-eng.com wrote:
Have you read some of the comments on that page's Talk page? They wish eventually to entirely abolish [[WP:IAR]] "and expunge its history."
Good anyone who need IRA to justify their actions should have carried them out in the first place.
WP:IAR is one of the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia. An attack on it is an attack on the basic structure of our project to create an encyclopedia.
The idea that "process is important" inherently puts rules and bureaucracy above writing an encyclopaedia - and we are here to write an encyclopaedia, correct? What [[WP:IAR]] states at its root is a principle that is central to Wikipedia - that is to say, that if you're doing what you believe is something that will benefit the encyclopaedia, damn the rules and do it anyway.
Perhaps but don't expect mercy if you make the wrong descision. If you throw the rules out of the window don't complain if you go that way too (I have not ben playing to much Max Payne I have not ben playing to much Max Payne)
Ah, so you're planning to abolish WP:AGF, too. Is WP:NPOV third on your list?
The fact that nothing (except image deletions) is permanent on Wikipedia makes [[WP:IAR]] work. If someone doesn't believe that my [[WP:BOLD]] invocation of [[WP:IAR]] was proper, they are free to boldly revert it, or in the case of a deletion, find one of those 700 admins to undelete it, in which case a discussion can begin.
Or we could do the discussion bit first you know. to quote Tony Sidaway:
Wikipedia is not a multiplayer game, it's not a time-critical affair. If something needs to be done, it'll wait until tomorrow, or most likely someone else will do it if it urgently needs to be done. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:08, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[[WP:IAR]] at its core, is about the fact that it is more beneficial to the encyclopaedia to *do* something than to worry about going through five levels of something Wikipedia is not, namely bureaucracy, before doing it.
Outside of directly improveing article content it is in fact often beneficial to do nothing on wikipedia. Problems have a tendancy to solve themselves given time
Being [[WP:BOLD]], a principle which I think no one would disagree with, often requires its complement, [[WP:IAR]].
-FCYTravis
WP:BOLD does not apply to admin actions.~~~~
geni
Wrong. Admins are as encouraged to be as bold as any other editor. The word "admin" does not appear on WP:BOLD at all, let alone as an exception.
- -- Sean Barrett | All life is six-to-five against. sean@epoptic.org |