Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Wikipedia isn't consistent.. We shouldn't let the fact the thousands of things are done wrong be an excuse for doing things incorrectly.
You are presupposing that counterexamples are inherently examples of things "done wrong." The problem is that this is far from obvious in many cases. One can't dismiss the issue so easily.
We accept open submission so if we allow the existance of examples in wikipedia to drive our standards we will, in effect, have no standards. I'm sure that would make some people, people editing for their own self-interests, happy but it would not be good.
Hey now, assume good faith. It's not just people who are editing "for their own self-interests" that prefer as inclusive a set of standards as possible under our policies.