You know, this Arius thing seems like another of those no win situations and to give it more than a passing concern is likely of minor value. You should state your opinion (with references) and move on. However, it is result of combining human nature with the design of wikipedia that keeps that from happening, as others can amend your answer page.
I've been in situations where someone says, "You believe __A__". To which I respond, "No, I believe __B__". To which they reply, "No you don't, and I don't care what you say, you believe __A__". Such situations are more combative than inquisitive. If someone has a preconceived notion that they refuse to let go, then arguing (however personally satisfying :) doesn't help and there comes a time to stop. That's why missionaries are supposed to teach and explain, but are told to stop before the "Bible Bashing" begins. Okay, getting back to the discussion open source (collaborative development of words, in this case)... This is one of the follies of wikipedia -- that it can degrade into a similar situation. Here is an article (http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2007/02/conservative-rival-for- wikipedia.html) that demonstrates this by talking about one particular offshoot of Wikipedia. (Disclaimer: I have no affinity for either side, I am just observing the events.) In this case, 'activists' keep 'contributing to' someone else's writings. IMO, the real issue is not necessarily what's right and what's wrong, but rather the tactics employed are allowed by the wikipedia design philosophy. (Yes, I now things are *supposed to* remain polite.) >From the above article, Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia creator) sums it up perfectly when he says, "Free culture knows no bounds." That's a powerful observation -- on many levels. John Adams commented on the U.S. Constitution by saying, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." I would postulate that wikipedia was made for the polite and intellectually honest and that it is wholly inadequate (as a source of reliable knowledge or thought) for any other. On the surface, I like the wikipedia-like collaborative contributions and usually find it interesting. However, unlike peer-reviewed journals that have developed reputations for scrutiny, collaborative discussions often degrade into a sum of the discussion rather than a sum of the facts. How can you argue with the majority, the popular, or the overly vocal? This is exactly why movie stars and rock stars have come to carry weight in discussions of science, climate change, politics, 'world peace', and the like. Can we chalk this up to a populous with growing pains regarding collaboration or is this indicative of persistent human nature...? Steve _______________________________________________ Ldsoss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ldsoss.org/mailman/listinfo/ldsoss
