Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators
38,093
edits
Forum:Rule 4 by Proxy and its ramifications: considered in the light of the forum archives: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forum:Rule 4 by Proxy and its ramifications: considered in the light of the forum archives (edit)
Revision as of 21:04, 3 January 2024
, 3 Januaryno edit summary
Tag: 2017 source edit |
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 2,460: | Line 2,460: | ||
:::I mean, yes, it would fail current R4, but that's a bit of a tautological statement. What I am asking is ''why'' we have written R4 in such a way that such a thing fails it. | :::I mean, yes, it would fail current R4, but that's a bit of a tautological statement. What I am asking is ''why'' we have written R4 in such a way that such a thing fails it. | ||
::No you're not, these are just not the prior statements you have made. You're claiming that validity ''is'' about merging pages. Not that it ''should be'' about merging pages. That this is what the thing ''is''. This is '''strictly''' false. If you want to say that validity ''would make more sense'' as a merging policy, based on the philosophy you've outlined above, I think that's perfectly within the scope of whatever the next thread would be (as I'm quite confident it would erase the T:CS/T:VS distinction for anything but R1 breakers). But that's just not what you've argued until now. You've repeatedly asserted that this is what validity ''is''. From your original OL response to the latest. These distinctions '''''matter.''''' [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC) | ::No you're not, these are just not the prior statements you have made. You're claiming that validity ''is'' about merging pages. Not that it ''should be'' about merging pages. That this is what the thing ''is''. This is '''strictly''' false. If you want to say that validity ''would make more sense'' as a merging policy, based on the philosophy you've outlined above, I think that's perfectly within the scope of whatever the next thread would be (as I'm quite confident it would erase the T:CS/T:VS distinction for anything but R1 breakers). But that's just not what you've argued until now. You've repeatedly asserted that this is what validity ''is''. From your original OL response to the latest. These distinctions '''''matter.''''' [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC) | ||
:Keeping this short for the same reason - I meant to argue that this is the ''heart'' of "the coherent thing that the current partially-incoherent mess is striving to become", for which I think "validity is ''fundamentally'' a merging policy" is a fair gloss. (Oh — this is just a mirror of our earlier argument about whether the currentl Rule 4's DWU "is" the Web or not.) | |||
:Also, for the avoidance of doubt — I'm not ''sure'' if you're misreading me on this point — "a merging policy" should not be construed as meaning "a policy saying to merge stuff", but rather "one of multiple policies about reasons we might ''or might not'' merge stuff"; I am saying it is a policy whose practical upshot is that it guides ''when and how we merge things'', not that it is a policy whose purpose is merging things, nor the only policy by which we judge whether to merge things. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 21:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
