> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 3:57 AM, Mike Christie <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Perhaps the policies can be improved, but they are written to stop bad >> editing rather than to encourage good editing. I don't think that can >> be >> changed. It's impossible to legislate good judgement, and it's >> judgement >> that was called for with the Haymarket article. > > If policies don't encourage good judgment, or discourage bad judgment, > then what are policies for? > > It seems worth discussing whether it would be good to revise the > existing policy to restore its original (presumed) functionality. > > More generally, I've believed for a long time that WP policies have > been increased, modified, and subverted in ways that both create a > higher barrier to entry for new editors and that discourage both new > editors and existing ones. > > > --Mike
I think it probably seems to climate change deniers that excluding political opinions from science-based articles on global warming is a violation of neutral point of view, and of basic fairness. That is just one example, but there are other similar situations. Fred _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
