Which Wikipedia policy is most often applied to achieve the exact opposite of its stated purpose? - what is the purpose of viginal hair
For example, the frequent use of "WP: Civil" as a weapon against other users.
Friday, January 15, 2010
What Is The Purpose Of Viginal Hair Which Wikipedia Policy Is Most Often Applied To Achieve The Exact Opposite Of Its Stated Purpose?
6 comments:
I would say she has beaten on WP: Civil. There's also WP: NPA, but seems more useful calendar.
I agree with Andre WP: Consensus functions normally, "if I disagree with you, then there is no consensus for your ideas if you do not get on" Then people will be set after the other ways to express their ideas through , many of them against other Wikipedia policies or say. This could be a "wiki-law." Or they could try to create multiple users are sock puppets, the state of the admin and PIN (the rest in one of his enemies, but it takes too long, and if they have a full time job that can not afford the luxury, if it all their waking Wikipedia ) are connected. Or they can comfortably with real people who agree with them and encourage them to fight in their wiki, which is a violation of WP: Canvas, unless of course you are an administrator or operator who is to join the system, counting.
Another policy, often gets the opposite of its stated aim is the political biographies of living persons. It works very well for big name celebrities, but some local celebrities such as Erin Brockovic. (is) before the film is not in a position to be somewhat slandered on Wikipedia to do. These people are WP: SOL.
WP: FULL reminds me, because) its frequent use to protect a particular version of the administration or protection of their friends, contrary to his stated purpose (do not support this trend, however, and favors point m: wrong version.
In essence, those political power of another political abuse / testing guidelines have - WP: TE, WP: harass, WP: Duck, WP: WIKILAWYERING win a dispute. Thus, opponents accuse the head of the Assembly and if they are too little rude to jump on IRC # administrators a block of his fellow director request.
WP: Civil is certainly the prime suspect in this area. A director once tried to get me if they blame me, something that has not only failed, but do not start on me with the tactics (Joint bait) to. However, my vote would be WP: NPOV. All politics is on the absurd notion that somehow based 'neutrality' is a "view" of his own, while the rest of the known universe, the 'neutrality' really means by the refusal of acceptance of a view. The reversal of the meaning of this word in my head, that's really difficult for defenders to promote their agenda, because their perspective is more "neutral" from someone else. The policy is written so confused unartfully is not surprising that both gamed.
EDIT: I agree with Andrew and Nancy, that competitors WP: consensus is very strong here in the consensus "on Wikipedia is something quite different in the sense of the world. Concentrate always a slight advantage to WP: NPOV, however.
WP: Civil is certainly the prime suspect in this area. A director once tried to get me if they blame me, something that has not only failed, but do not start on me with the tactics (Joint bait) to. However, my vote would be WP: NPOV. All politics is on the absurd notion that somehow based 'neutrality' is a "view" of his own, while the rest of the known universe, the 'neutrality' really means by the refusal of acceptance of a view. The reversal of the meaning of this word in my head, that's really difficult for defenders to promote their agenda, because their perspective is more "neutral" from someone else. The policy is written so confused unartfully is not surprising that both gamed.
EDIT: I agree with Andrew and Nancy, that competitors WP: consensus is very strong here in the consensus "on Wikipedia is something quite different in the sense of the world. Concentrate always a slight advantage to WP: NPOV, however.
It may well be the rule of consensus available - which is how the work "when you and I agree that attempts to solve it together", but often acts as if I do not agree with you, then there there is no consensus ideas do not go. "Another, which is often abused," assume good faith "- Hardly anything has been done so often in Wikipedia to fraudulently claim that the violation of AGF.
Post a Comment