On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > That's right. I proposed that we *treat* self-proclaimed experts as > having a COI, i.e., the same basic rules. A badge of honor, not a > shame. No more arguments about whether a situation is a real COI or > not. You claim to be an expert, please don't contentiously edit the article.
The idea that a badge of honor results in a restriction is contrary to what most people think of as a badge of honor. Like the argument "a block isn't a punishment", calling a restriction by a nicer name and pretending it isn't a restriction isn't going to fool anyone, and may only discourage more people as they now see that not only are you adding dubious restrictions, you're trying to lie about them. > It's a way to *protect* experts, not attack them. Treating "as COI" > isn't an attack at all. Right now, "COI" is often used as a attack. It's an attack because it allows you to limit their activities in a way that you could not if they didn't have a COI. In other words, it's treated as an attack because it functions just like one. You're not going to get anywhere by pretending it's not something that it is. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
