On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Brian J Mingus <[email protected]> wrote: > This strikes me as indirection. If someone claims that an article is biased > then they are also claiming that the process governing its creation is > biased. Such a claim is not a slur, it is a purported statement of fact. > However, you would say that the claim is invalid because to claim that an > article is biased is to necessarily not assume good faith. Following your > line of indirection, it isn't possible to claim that an article is biased > because you would necessary violate the principle of good faith, ie, > implicitly or explicitly claiming that particular editors are biased. I > believe you would rather follow this line of reasoning because it directs > attention away from the real issues at hand.
This bunch of wikilawyering ignores the fact that you directly called the *contributors* and not the article biased. And you've doubled down on the baseless accusations by accusing me of trying to distract from the issue at hand. For what reason? Motive: Unknown. I guess I'm one of those "biased anti-Santorum contributors" you initially complained about. Proof of this presented: None. How long have you been editing Wikipedia? I'd expect this kind of behavior from a combative new editor, but an experienced editor or administrator really should know better. How editors interact with one another isn't a "distraction", it's pretty fundamental to what we do here. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
