User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-7302713-20130409112511/@comment-188432-20130412020614

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-7302713-20130409112511/@comment-188432-20130412020614 This thread was opened on a question of policy.


 * Is there a specific policy in regards to redlinks?

That invites a policy-based discussion. Of course policy isn't the driving force behind editing. It facilitates editing, but it's merely the rails, not the train.

But you asked about policy. In a policy based discussion, especially to a new user, it is reasonable for the administrative staff to acquaint the new user with as many policies as might be relevant to answer the question.

Also there is an extent to which this thread is not just for you but for others who may have similar questions. Thus, pointing out policies that don't have directly to do with you, like the ones regarding Wikipedia, may have future applicability to readers, even if they don't to you. I'm sorry that you have some sort of bad feeling about that particular aspect of the discussion, but it is incumbent on admin to make people aware of the differences between this project and. We get a number of editors, myself included, but even the very leaders of that project, who edit here. Since your objections precisely mirrored those in standard Wikipedia philosophy about links, it was entirely appropriate to mention our philosophical differences with Wikipedia in an effort to better explain the "relevancy" questions you had. I honestly can't see why that would be at all offensive.

Additionally, the fact that you continued to ask the same questions even after policy was pointed out to you seemed to indicate that you needed further explanation. In fairness, it is difficult to know how to answer someone who on the one hand says "all I wanted was a yes or no", and on the other says, "I wanted to know if there were exceptions". If in my confusion over what you wanted, I insulted you by over-explaining, I honestly was only trying to cover a very wide spread of possibilities.

And the fact that you used hyperbole not employed by other users—like "insanely difficult to read"—required questions to obtain clarification, not to minimise your opinions.

However, as you're claiming that you have been acquainted with policy, the question of this this thread has been answered, and the thread may now be safely closed.