On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Brian J Mingus <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:50 PM, George Herbert > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Brian J Mingus >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Rob <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Brian J Mingus >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > I believe you will have a hard time justifying your claim that my >> comment >> >> is >> >> > false (not to mention that it is a slur). It should be easy to show >> that >> >> the >> >> > article is curated by at least one, and probably several, biased >> >> > anti-Santorum contributors. >> >> >> >> The onus is on you to prove that such a broad slur on other Wikipedia >> >> editors is true. Even if we accept this as truth, the solution to >> >> such problems is typically the eyes of more editors and not deletion. >> > >> > >> > 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. >> >> I do not read the article as anti-Santorum or biased. >> >> If it were anti-Santorum and biased, this discussion would likely have >> taken place on the article talk page, with specific examples of >> paragraphs, sentences, sections, quotes, source selection etc. which >> were improper or unbalanced. >> >> The actual discussion has included essentially none of this. >> >> It's somewhat of a jump of faith to extrapolate from this that there's >> nothing wrong at the detail level with the article, but that claim >> could be made and defended credibly. >> >> The claims of things wrong with it that are being made are, in >> Wikipedia terms, novel interpretations. BOLD allows us to take wider >> views, but it does not allow one to merely assert a particular wider >> view to be absolute and unchallengeable truth. >> >> Yes, several people here believe that it's a problem. No, not >> everyone does. No, you do not appear to have a consensus on your >> side, much less a majority. >> >> Under those conditions, BOLD fails, and we revert to the details and >> to standard interpretations. About which no detailed problems have >> been asserted so far... >> >> >> -- >> -george william herbert >> [email protected] >> > > > If only there were a way to quantify notability I believe this problem would > be much easier to tackle. I am personally not inclined to go through the > article point by point and try to figure out what ought to be there. In > general I think we can show that the article is too long and ought to be > rewritten in a shorter, more concise form without also having to debate > every sentence there. As was previously stated, Wikipedia is not the > end-all-be-all of information on a topic, but in this case it comes pretty > close. That's not how it's supposed to be..
As I said earlier - I think that making it shorter and more concise would leave out elements that *improve* how Santorum appears, in the totality. His behavior - described in some but not excessive detail - and the critical and academic context - described in some but not excessive detail - make him look better than the raw incident does. In this particular, I am vexed and confused. If the longer article makes him look better, why in the flying spaghetti monster's name are those advocating human dignity here asking to shorten it? Seriously - the details here matter. -- -george william herbert [email protected] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
