Kevin:
You wrote:
On Wikipedia they remove articles if you can't show sources to argue that
the topic is important enough to have an article.
[endquote]
But do you see anything wrong with that? Are "sources" needed for everything?
So they're saying that not having to bury your favorite candidate isn't
important
unless it says so in an academic journal? :-)
Could it be that someone at wikipedia has their head up their a**?
And, in general, is that the same for everything? Does the validity of
everything
depend on its being validated by an academic?
I'm not criticizing all academics. In mathematics, physics and other physical
sciences,
I have no quarrel with the authority of academics.
But a sweeping worship of academic authority in general is unproductive for
progress
of any kind.
There are areas where academic authority is questionable at best. Have you
every looked
at what academic philosophers write? You'd be surprised how nearly-uniformly
muddled and
befuddled they are. Voting system academics are similar. I'm sorry, but the
metaphor
of "head up the a**" is unavoidable when the subject of voting system academics
comes up.
I'm disappointed to hear that about wikipedia.
Mike Ossipoff
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
