On Oct 27, 2008, at 11:18 PM, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 10/27/2008 11:58:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
I'll sidestep the specifics of Lanier beyond saying that the version
of the article he objected to was crap, and at least two of his
objections were absolutely spot-on. I have not evaluated beyond that,
but certainly he was not wrong to object.>>
-------------
I don't think anyone is saying he was wrong to object.
But as independent editors, we don't have a simple way to determine
that: A)
he is the actual subject; and B) his word takes priority over cited
sources.
That's the real crux of the matter.
No, it's not. Writing an encyclopedia is not a theoretical exercise.
The goal is to get the information correct. We fucked it up here, and
our policies did not enable us to fix it. That is a problem. Saying
"the system worked" because it turned out a self-consistent turd is
not reasonable.
-Phil