[WikiEN-l] IAR

[stevertigo]

Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/2/09, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>  But the IAR policy is clear, if ANY policy, including BLP stops you
>>  improving the wikipedia then you can override it.
> ...until someone objects.
> The important caveat.

Heh.

That's interesting that the application of a "policy" ("pillar" even)
that itself is simply a caveat, requires another caveat with regard to
its application.

In any case, the problem lies with both "policies:"
IAR, as everyone here knows is a practical oxymoron, and a relic from
a bygone era of adequate-ness, where a simplistic policy could
substitute for a simple one.

BLP is just a range-specific application of OFFICE and RS -- "reliable
sources" itself being a necessary, but nevertheless idiopathic
stepchild of the [[objectivity (journalism)]] principle (our NPOV),
with a quasi-subjective misnomer in its name.

-Stevertigo