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.
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(a)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(a)gmail.com>om>:
>
> 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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 18/06/07, Eagle 101 <eagle.wikien.l(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l