> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Brian J Mingus > <brian.min...@colorado.edu> 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.
We need to grapple with the articles, and templates, on the wiki. Fred _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l