Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > In that sentence there are buried assumptions as follows: > > 1. There are people on wikipedia who will not permit > quality. > > 2. People who won't permit quality are aggressive. > > 3. There is a clear unambiguous metric for quality. > > 4. Aggressive people who won't permit quality will > follow an article. > > 5. Over the long term, the dynamics of wikipedias > practices will not prevent editors who will not > allow quality on wikipedia from dragging it down > to the level that they aggressively and persistently > insist on bringing it down to. There are no working > heuristics to allow it to transcend that attractor. > > *Understanding* the logical flaws of those 5 statements > is left to the student. > It would be rash to say you couldn't find any examples where this is true - there is a large selection of articles. It might be a fair model for the article about, for example, a controversial Governor of Alaska who didn't get chosen as a candidate for Vice-President. But you could click Random Article for a little while before you came up with an article to which this argument really would apply.
Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
