On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:32 PM, stevertigo <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:34 AM, stevertigo <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I would prefer we make the losers of an argument actually write notes > >> of capitulation. How else am I going to know they aren't just going to > >> come back and screw with me some more later? > Ryan Delaney <[email protected]> wrote: > > It's hard for me to even answer this question, since it assumes a > > perspective to editing Wikipedia that I don't subscribe to, and don't > want > > to. Why on earth would you even approach editing on Wikipedia in terms of > > "making" the "losers" "capitulate" to us so that we don't get "screwed"? > I > > really would encourage you to rethink this, because you seem to think > that > > policy ought to be written to accommodate this paranoid attitude that > other > > people here don't share. > > I was being facetious. Sort of. The term "notes of capitulation" > should have been a giveaway (though I probably could have capitalized > it to be clearer). > > In point of fact though, we do sometimes have to employ the > [[adversarial system]] to dealing with other editors. Not always, but > sometimes. In such cases its still necessary to be clear with one > another. So, if someone misrepresents my argument (as with your usage > of "paranoid attitude" above), I have to point this problem out, and > as a consequence their argument is weaker, and they lose a certain > point within the overall debate. Some people do like to Wikilawyer > people to death just by saying things like "POINT," "IAR" or even > "DISRUPT," but that doesn't change the fact if their arguments are in > substance, weaker. > > Granted, there is some ambiguity about which policies trump which that > need discernment and Arbcom to sort out. But language is still > nevertheless atomic: Debates can be broken down into arguments, > arguments can be broken down into points, points can be broken down > into statements, statements can be examined for logic and > terminological accuracy... In that context of logical, rational, > argument - just as its quite honorable for one to admit making a > mistake - conceding a point and then re-examining one's own argument > is an essential aspect of a civil editorial discussion. > > -Stevertigo > "Make me a deal, and make it straight... > > Obviously, pursuing this further isn't a good use of either of our time. - causa sui _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
