On 27/06/2010, Andrew Gray <[email protected]> wrote: > On 27 June 2010 17:47, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Where you draw the line, though, is quite tricky... >> >> So should the various articles linked to from here be deleted? >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_economic_thought > > Economics was a bad example, perhaps :-) > > That said, this illustrates the point - we are quite capable of having > an article on [[neoclassical economics]] and one on [[marxist > economics]], but what we don't have is two co-equal articles on > [[economics]], one from a Marxist perspective and one from a > neoclassical perspective.
They're subarticles. The Wikipedia allows subarticles, and that's not considered a fork. And even that can be abused. > As I say, fuzzy line, especially with more philosophical concepts - it > shows up the problems with simply saying "we don't like forks". We don't like forks. That isn't the problem. The problem is the people that DO like forks. > -- > - Andrew Gray > [email protected] -- -Ian Woollard _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
