[WikiEN-l] While we're at it, NOR line-by-line

[Phil Sandifer]

On 4/7/08, WJhonson at aol.com <WJhonson at aol.com> wrote:

>  That might be a change.  I do recall debating the exact language of  that
>  section several months ago.  I drifted away from some policy pages for  a bit.
>
>  I'm sure the argument would be something like "If you cannot convince the
>  reader that your ...deduction... follows, then you're not very good at writing"
>  ;)  Sort of an antagonistic approach, but perhaps reasonable in some  regard.
>
>  If you are having a particular issue, with a particular article, I'd like  to
>  see it, to get a feel of the underlying philosophical issues more
>  concretely.  It's sometimes hard to argue hypothetically, the cognitive  dissonance
>  compels me to spend days writing up position papers for WP.

It's not a problem with a specific article so much as a problem with a
specific attitude that gets brought up, often at AfD, that seems to me
uniquely pernicious as it is based on the substitution of an
ostensibly mechanical, automatic standard for one based on judgment
and subtlety. This sort of wikinomic has always been a problem, but is
becoming more and more of one. While it certainly cannot be legislated
away, we can, at least, take the tools used to bludgeon discussions
away from articulate and careful discussions among passionate,
knowledgeable editors (i.e. how articles are actually written) and
towards a game where you get your way not by persuading anybody, but
by going "A ha ha, you only have one independent source."

The idea that we can come up with a set of rules that can be applied
reflexively to two million articles is insane. What we can do is say
"Look, you really shouldn't have anything in an article that isn't
part of a mainstream point of view. Please be sure to edit articles
with that in mind." And then trust our editors to, you know, think,
discuss, debate, and come to a consensus.

Can we legislate away the Taylorized killbots who would rather treat
Wikipedia as the hot new thing in MMOGs? No. But we can at least stop
privledging such approaches in our core policies. Right now
bizarrenesses like "interpretations and summaries must be clear to a
non-specialist" and "all statements must be backed by sources" -
things that have no relationship to any reality of research as it is
taught or understood - rule the day.

-Phil