[WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research

[Ken Arromdee]

On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, David Gerard wrote:
> > This is logical, but only proves that our rules contradict ourselves every
> > which way.
> Yes. The rules are not a consistent legal framework, they're a series
> of quick hacks.

The literal words aren't the only problem, though.  Usually our rules are
written so as to emphasize that the user should or should not do some specific
thing.  But if you emphasize something strongly in the rules, that *affects
how the spirit of the rules is interpreted*.

It's not just that people are too literal about primary sources--it's that
even if they go by the spirit of the rules, the lopsided emphasis makes it
seem like the spirit of the rules is as restrictive as the literal rules.

And back to literal words... I'm really tired of the attitude "since the
rules aren't meant to be taken literally, we won't fix them so that they
make more sense if someone does try to read them literally".