I am a Wikipedia editor. Just a blip in a database.
Wikiphilosophy
Netoholic's Law
As a wiki discussion grows longer, the probability of an accusation by one user of another acting unilaterally approaches one.
Look, I've made thousands of "unilateral" edits, so probably have you. It's a wiki. Get over it.
Corollary: One can substitute any of the following for "unilaterally", and the law still works -- "against consensus", "mindlessly", "carelessly", "out of process". Any of these words indicates you might be facing off against a wiki-warrior.
Wikipedia:Ignore all rules does not mean "Fuck the rules". Citing
WP:IAR isn't something to get you out of giving a good explanation. Its an apology you give when keeping track of the rules got too unbearable and you just wanted to write an encyclopedia.
<jwales> There are people who have good sense. There are idiots. A consensus of idiots does not override good sense. Wikipedia is not a democracy.
You don't have to like your subject to write a sound article about it. Sometimes it's better not to like it, as there's a greater incentive to be neutral. -
Peridon
For standing up to the misguided masses (myself included), helping to free Wikipedia from the hidden horrors of conditional meta-templatesDavid Levy 15:20, 23 Dec 2005