James Alexander wrote: > That is basically exactly how I see it, most times you "double check" > something you are only the 2nd person because the first check is done by the > original author. We assume good faith, we assume that they are putting > legitimate and correct information into the article and checked to make sure > it didn't break any policies, it's just that because of problems on that > page we wanted to have someone double check.
That's a good attitude, but such an interpretation is far from intuitive. Our goal is to select a name that stands on its own as an unambiguous description, not one that requires background knowledge of our philosophies. I'll also point out that one of the English Wikipedia's most important policies is "ignore all rules," a major component of which is the principle that users needn't familiarize themselves with our policies (let alone "check to make sure" they aren't breaking them) before editing. David Levy _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
