Curt Siffert <siffert <at> museworld.com> writes: >> I recently posted this addendum to the Arrow's Theorem page on >> wikipedia: It was immediately deleted for "bias".
>> [...] >> Was I out in left field for writing this? I was under the impression >> that many vote theorists agreed with this characterization. On 5/12/05, Araucaria Araucana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just a thought, but stating "many vote theorists" without providing > supporting links to referreed articles might have led to the bias decision. > I'm not saying that your argument is like those supporting Intelligent > Design or denying Global Warming, but perhaps as a result of the furor > on those other topics, the wikipedia maintainers are a little sensitive > to unsubstantiated claims. Wikipedia maintainers are sensitive to _arguments_, period. If you'd rewritten your contribution in a more neutral point of view (NPOV) rather than one clearly sympathetic to the position you were describing, it would have been more likely to be accepted. NPOV can be subtle -- making changes such as "some voting theorists" or "a number of voting theorists" rather than "many voting theorists" can make a big difference in perception. Also, it's better to discuss significant changes on the talk pages prior to the change, especially for articles with an active maintainer base. -Bill Clark ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
