David Gerard wrote: > 2009/3/4 Fred Bauder <[email protected]>: > > >> How about something a little more helpful? >> > > > Uh, I think pointing out obvious problems counts, particularly when > the solution offered is to do the same things that are already > problematic twice as hard. > > The hard part is to lead the community to a standard of living bio > that is suitable. > > * What makes a valid research source is not something teenagers on a > website can make up off the top of their heads and expect to get > right, but that's what WP:RS is. See the talk page if you don't > believe me. Hubris and enthusiasm don't make competence, > unfortunately. > * No guideline or policy will protect against stupidity or malice, and > those that try to will be a millstone for good faith editors. But time > and time again, the community reaction has been to add more policies > and guidelines in the hope these will protect against stupidity or > malice, and blame the good faith editors for not following the bad > guidelines hard enough. See the current arbitration case on the > matter. > > > - d. > > __ I cannot stress enough how strongly I agree with this assessment. If NPOV, V, and RS were followed - as they should be by normally intelligent adults wishing to write good articles - BLP isn't even needed at all. I support BLP existing, although I've seen it misused a good bit - but IMO it wouldn't hurt a bit if someone IAR'd and gutted a lot of the other policies that have grown up like weeds over the last couple of years. More will only make matters worse.
-kc- _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
