[WikiEN-l] IAR

[Surreptitiousness]

Ken Arromdee wrote:
> The result is people
> constantly claiming that you can't ignore rules for BLP or privacy concerns,
> since helping the BLP subject is not a form of improving the encyclopedia.
>   
Hang on, you've set up a straw man there.  You haven't shown how 
"helping the BLP subject is not a form of improving the encyclopedia" is 
actually true.  Which is wrong, because there are instances where 
helping the BLP subject does improve the encyclopedia.  Most people who 
participate in debates of this nature are usually wise enough to 
recognise that there are two sides to the debate: the side that says 
maintaining good PR and taking moral and ethical concerns into 
consideration makes us a better encyclopedia, and the side that thinks 
that presenting information that is reliably sourced, verifiable and 
neutrally presented best improves the encyclopedia.  Most sides will 
concede that you can IAR either way, but the important thing is that if 
you do IAR either way and someone feels you called it wrong, you don't 
actually quote IAR but instead you join the debate and reach and respect 
a consensus. IAR works fine until you use it as a defense.  It isn't a 
defense.  The defense is why you used IAR, not that you used IAR.  I'd 
hate to arrest some of the people who misuse IAR; they probably carry a 
"get out of jail free" card from monopoly in their pocket for use in 
such circumstances.