[WikiEN-l] I've Kicked the Process Habit

[geni]

On 9/19/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> I haven't followed this whole thread, so this point may have been
> amply made already, but:
>
>         *Phil did not say he was going to violate policy.*
>
> He said he was going to ignore process, and there's a crucial
> difference.  The speculation is that simply doing the right
> thing, even in ignorance of process, will be in substantial
> accordance with it (or at least, with core policy) 90% of the
> time anyway.  And for the other 10%, the possibility that the
> process is misguided or incomplete, and the existence of IAR,
> ought to about cover it.
>
> (Phil didn't claim those 90/10 numbers; I just made them up.)
>

Problem is that did state he was going to ignore a number of policies.
[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]] for example or [[Wikipedia:Deletion
policy]].

> Is Phil getting smeared now?  I can't say I'm surprised.  To the
> process wonk, process is the most important thing there is, way
> more important than the goals of the project it's supposed to
> support.  Denying or disavowing the sacred process is the most
> cardinal of sins.

Interesting strawman you've got there. It's either a strawman or an
irrelevance if you are making a general statement about a group you
have defined as "process wonks" you have failed to provide evidence of
their involvement. If you are talking about me (you know the guy who
was accused of smearing Phil) then the accusation would probably work
better if I hadn't at some point or another ignored almost every
process on wikipedia. I however generally had a pretty good idea which
process I was ignoring and why it existed.

>
> I don't deny that Phil's declaration was provocative.  It calls
> to mind Colonel Cathcart's objection to Yossarian's attitude:
> "What if everyone felt that way?"  But Yossarian's retort is
> equally apt: "Then I'd certainly be a fool not to."

Yossarian's retort appears to be an appeal to popularity logical fallacy.

-- 
geni