WP:BOLD has got nothing to do with administrative actions, which anyone should bloody well know. Slap anyone who applies the policy for things like deleting a page with a very, very wet trout.
-Salaskan (P.S. I went bold at the "be bold" article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Be_bold&diff=1397699... )
2007/6/22, Silas Snider swsnider@gmail.com:
Except... WP:BOLD has been interpreted to apply to such actions as deletion, which are not so easily reversed (the phrase 'wheel-warring' starts occurring if you just hit 'revert').
Sincerely, Silas Snider
On 6/21/07, Skander - shinywater@gmail.com wrote:
MediaWiki has this nice thing called a "revert button", which makes
boldness
not harmful in any way. How else do you want to keep Wikipedia's open
spirit
and anti-elitism? The power of wiki's is that anyone can edit anything
and,
most importantly, can revert anything, so boldness should be encouraged.
If
something is done against consensus "per WP:BOLD", who cares, revert it
and
discuss. WP:BRD.
-Salaskan
2007/6/21, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com:
As for BOLD, I have never seen it cited for good ends; most good editing doesn't need it. It is usually used as the attempted justification for edits against the consensus. Personally I'd rather remove it from the guidelines altogether, but it is referred to so many times that perhaps it should be written in a way that would make it less likely to be misused. I see there's an active discussion there.
On 6/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/06/07, Eagle 101 eagle.wikien.l@gmail.com wrote:
Ignore all Rules is common sense written into policy. The concept
behind it
(at least to me) is that if ignoring the rules help you improve
the
encyclopaedia (and that is your intent when you ignored the
rules),
there is
a decent chance that you are doing something right, even if it
does
not meet
our policy XYZ, section 3, subsection c. How it is to be used is
another
matter, when ignoring the rules you probably have a decent
rational
behind
why doing so improves the encyclopaedia, otherwise its hard to
justify
should someone ask. Merely shouting IAR when you don't like a
particular
rule is not useful. But if you ignore the rules and the net
benefit is
to
the encyclopaedia (yes that thing we are trying to build ya know
;) )
then
its likely a useful action (edit whatever). Ignore all rules is intended to be hard to pin down, to avoid
codifying how
to ignore all rules ;).
Let me pimp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PRO once more.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
Silas Snider is a proud member of the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist (AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD) , and the Harmonious Editing Club of Wikipedia.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l