Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/Creation

Wikilawyering
In the section Wikilawyering, it says "The community generally believes that the Wikipedia method works". Really? I've discussed this in quite a number of different fora as occasion arose over the last couple of years, & I haven't yet come across anyone who, when pinned down to concrete detail rather than vague abstractions, claimed it worked. For example, not long ago I asked RSN whether they regularly reached consensus, & whether that would be enforced by admin. The answer was basically "Often, no". Peter jackson (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is the complete paragraph, to give the full context:
 * The community generally believes that the Wikipedia method works; that Wikipedia is generally a successful project, and that admins are generally trustworthy. An outcome that will result in Wikipedia (and its editors) working better is what is favoured. Pursuing arguments that oppose Wikipedia's basic principles, suggesting the existence of a massive cabal of rogue admins, or treating the dispute resolution process as if it were an end in itself will not work.
 * Some have compared Wikipedia to the aeronautical engineer's analysis of the bumblebee: by all normal rules it shouldn't be able to fly. I, personally, could give a long list of the major and minor problems with Wikipedia. Nothing about Wikipedia works correctly yet, somehow, we've managed to create the world's largest encyclopedia.
 * I think the point of the text here is that, in the context of an RFC, it isn't helpful to defend one's own problematic behavior by asserting that the overall Wikipedia model is flawed, or that there are powerful and mysterious forces at work, or that dispute resolution is an aim of the project rather than just a facilitation process.   Will Beback    talk    10:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)