WP:G5 policy update: Even more hostile and irrational now.
Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2020 12:11 pm
A new paragraph of text has recently been added to WP:G5, making it even more self-destructive:
Probably, that irrational and illogical rule is retro-active as well.
Deleting a legitimate redirect just because the creator is a ban evader makes zero logical sense. It is effectively the same as deleting a redirect created by a non-blocked user.
It proves that Wikipedia's administration team is full of irrationalists, which is intrinsically harmful in long-term.
————————————
Here is the discussion:
http://archive.ph/wip/mt84t
Noticeable quote:
But every policy should be backed by logic and rational reasoning. G5 isn't.
G5 is just based on ancient irrational social principles.
Again: Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, is supposed for readers by definition. And those care about the contents themselves, not about the backstory of whichever user added the contents.
The damage of their irrationality and hostility is invisible. We don't know how much content has been withheld from readers because it was removed for irrational reasons.
And for what logic? None.* When a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sock-puppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the block or ban of the primary account qualify for G5 (if not substantially edited by others). Indeed this is the most common case for applying G5.
Probably, that irrational and illogical rule is retro-active as well.
Deleting a legitimate redirect just because the creator is a ban evader makes zero logical sense. It is effectively the same as deleting a redirect created by a non-blocked user.
It proves that Wikipedia's administration team is full of irrationalists, which is intrinsically harmful in long-term.
————————————
Here is the discussion:
http://archive.ph/wip/mt84t
Noticeable quote:
At least, he admits not to like G5.I don't really like G5, but it is policy.
But every policy should be backed by logic and rational reasoning. G5 isn't.
G5 is just based on ancient irrational social principles.
Again: Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, is supposed for readers by definition. And those care about the contents themselves, not about the backstory of whichever user added the contents.
The damage of their irrationality and hostility is invisible. We don't know how much content has been withheld from readers because it was removed for irrational reasons.