On 14/10/2010 20:36, Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Wed, 13 Oct 2010, Charles Matthews wrote: >> #167 is the allegation that "we" fail to understand what the Tea Party >> guys are all about. AFAIK we don't claim to understand anything much, >> just to compile articles from sources. > I think that as a serious response, this is disingenuous. People don't > write with 100% precision, and they certainly don't use Wikipedia terminology. > It may be literally true that we don't claim to understand anything, but that > doesn't make the complaint invalid. It just means that you need to apply a > bit more intelligence to understanding the complaint beyond literally parsing > the words. (And there's *far* too much literalness among Wikipedia policy > wonks). > > I would guess that a complaint that we don't understand something is a claim > of undue weight and unreliable sources. Almost any claim about the Tea Party > has been made by someone; whether it has been made by someone who we ought to > pay attention to is another story. Well, you might be right (I don't mean about me being disingenuous, which is certainly one of the wrong words for what I was being). On the other hand it seems more likely to me that the complaint was one of interpretation, rather than reporting.
Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
