[WikiEN-l] A further descent into self-referential idiocy

[Jeff Raymond]

Andrew Gray wrote:

> 
> And then, the crowning glory: "Strong keep ... No BLP issues and
> Wikipedia contains content you might find objectionable ... Wikipedia
> is not censored ... ethical point of views and non-neutral !votes are
> irrelevant." - from, god help me, an admin. One of the people we
> theoretically select for common sense and an understanding of our
> goals. Linking - I am not making this up - to the content disclaimer.
> 
> Are we really saying that *because we made up an arbitrary rule
> ourselves*, we get to ignore any form of editorial sense and then
> loudly disclaim responsibility for the result? Do people honestly
> believe that this makes us an encyclopedia? A grand game of nomic over
> what does and doesn't constitute a topic, an endless series of rules
> on who we can and cannot write about, without any attempt to apply
> *judgement* to them? Without any attempt to say - hey, sometimes we
> have to make decisions on things?

Welcome to the shitstorm of the week.  This is what happens when 
administrators take it upon themselves to reinterpret policy and get 
everyone in a huff.  See my Arbcom case for more.

No one would have noticed a damn thing about this article if certain 
people weren't acting the way they have been over the last month or so. 
  This is simply the latest in a long line of casualties that isn't 
going to end pretty.

-Jeff

-- 
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "I was always a fan of Lisa Loeb, particularly
	because you kind of get the impression she
	sang every song either about or to her cats.
	They seem to be the driving force in most of
	her creative process."     - Chuck Klosterman