It is harmfully restrictive, in that if the rule were consistently followed it would restrict how people comment in a way that is harmful to the growth of Wikipedia. It would prevent people from adding information that cannot be integrated into the material already written, without adding a substantial amount of new material. In cases when people do not wish to add a substantial amount of new matieral, they would leave nothing. Adding new information to the bottom of the page is preferable to adding nothing. |
It is harmfully restrictive, in that if the rule were consistently followed it would restrict how people comment in a way that is harmful to the growth of Wikipedia. It would prevent people from adding information that cannot be integrated into the material already written, without adding a substantial amount of new material. In cases when people do not wish to add a substantial amount of new matieral, they would leave nothing. Adding new information to the bottom of the page is preferable to adding nothing. Well, I agree 100% with the latter paragraph. But this is consistent with what I said. I've edited the rule so you ought to be able to agree with it now, Tim. --LMS See also Tim's Refactoring as the essential Wikipedia process. |
However, comments relevent to the existing beautiful prose should be integrated into the flow of the article rather than tacked on. The rule, as presently formulated, is correct for such cases, but is harmfully restrictive with regards to comments not relevent to the prose as it currently exists.