On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:50 PM, George Herbert <george.herb...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Brian J Mingus > <brian.min...@colorado.edu> wrote: > > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Rob <gamali...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Brian J Mingus > >> <brian.min...@colorado.edu> wrote: > >> > I believe you will have a hard time justifying your claim that my > comment > >> is > >> > false (not to mention that it is a slur). It should be easy to show > that > >> the > >> > article is curated by at least one, and probably several, biased > >> > anti-Santorum contributors. > >> > >> The onus is on you to prove that such a broad slur on other Wikipedia > >> editors is true. Even if we accept this as truth, the solution to > >> such problems is typically the eyes of more editors and not deletion. > > > > > > This strikes me as indirection. If someone claims that an article is > biased > > then they are also claiming that the process governing its creation is > > biased. Such a claim is not a slur, it is a purported statement of fact. > > However, you would say that the claim is invalid because to claim that an > > article is biased is to necessarily not assume good faith. Following your > > line of indirection, it isn't possible to claim that an article is biased > > because you would necessary violate the principle of good faith, ie, > > implicitly or explicitly claiming that particular editors are biased. I > > believe you would rather follow this line of reasoning because it directs > > attention away from the real issues at hand. > > I do not read the article as anti-Santorum or biased. > > If it were anti-Santorum and biased, this discussion would likely have > taken place on the article talk page, with specific examples of > paragraphs, sentences, sections, quotes, source selection etc. which > were improper or unbalanced. > > The actual discussion has included essentially none of this. > > It's somewhat of a jump of faith to extrapolate from this that there's > nothing wrong at the detail level with the article, but that claim > could be made and defended credibly. > > The claims of things wrong with it that are being made are, in > Wikipedia terms, novel interpretations. BOLD allows us to take wider > views, but it does not allow one to merely assert a particular wider > view to be absolute and unchallengeable truth. > > Yes, several people here believe that it's a problem. No, not > everyone does. No, you do not appear to have a consensus on your > side, much less a majority. > > Under those conditions, BOLD fails, and we revert to the details and > to standard interpretations. About which no detailed problems have > been asserted so far... > > > -- > -george william herbert > george.herb...@gmail.com > If only there were a way to quantify notability I believe this problem would be much easier to tackle. I am personally not inclined to go through the article point by point and try to figure out what ought to be there. In general I think we can show that the article is too long and ought to be rewritten in a shorter, more concise form without also having to debate every sentence there. As was previously stated, Wikipedia is not the end-all-be-all of information on a topic, but in this case it comes pretty close. That's not how it's supposed to be.. - Brian _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l