[WikiEN-l] *spork*

[Ray Saintonge]

Jason Potkanski wrote:

>As the creator of the brainstorming page, I must first apologize for
>dare thinking about tinkering with the anarchist's prime directive.
>
>The policy is a philosophical policy, not a literal one. I don't
>expect the average wikipedia editor to understand philosophy. It is
>much harder to explain than NPOV and NPOV goes to great lengths to
>explain it.
>
>Leaving IAR as a piece of scripture is unacceptable. When looking at
>religious text, most people do not take the bible literally but
>figuratively. We can not just say it has "deep and subtle meaning," we
>must also offer a context that guides a reader to make their own
>conclusions.
>
>This isn't "instruction creep" ... it is basic education.
>
>Save the holy verses for religious texts and rhetoric for dev/null .
>On Wikipedia, sane consensus-built uniform policy pages please.
>
I must commend the writer for confessing to his inability to understand 
philosophy.

"Ignore All Rules" is not a policy; it is a principle.  This is not a 
matter of taking the WikiBible literally or figuratively.  The most 
profound biblical principles or those of other religions are said in 
very simple words that get right to the point.  To say that "we must 
also offer a context that guides a reader to make their own 
conclusions," creates a paradox, because by offering a guide to 
interpreting the principle we put the reader on the way to reaching the 
conclusions that we want him to reach.  We do much better by stating a 
principle, guiding the reader by our actions, and being willing to 
adjust our views if the newbie presents a good idea.

Uniform policy pages impose stagnation, they make change with the times 
very difficult, and they insult the intelligence of those who may not 
yet have contributed to Wikipedia.  In another context that kind of 
thing gave us the copyright laws that we all love so well.

Ec