Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:42 PM, David Goodman
> <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Even people with similar general understanding and the utmost good
>> will can have difficulty in trying to condense complex ides into a
>> creed, or a lede paragraph.
>>
>> In the Real World, the question of whether and in what sense Jesus
>> is an incarnation of God has been debted for over 19 centuries now,
>> and many of the nastier of the debates have involved single
>> words--in one case, a single letter. As this is what the
>> intellectual and spiritual leaders of mankind have done, there is
>> no reason to expect anything other than that here, unless we are
>> all too ignorant to know about the controversies or totally
>> indifferent to the issues. The main advantage we have over the RW
>> is that it is not possible to spill real blood over the internet.
>
> My point is that in the context of wikipedia, what the lede should
> say, the issue has been hammered out by megabytes of discussion and
> revision. It's not like you can walk in there and say "hey guys, you
> know, the article should really say so-and-so, so I'm just gonna fix
> it for ya!". There is a reason the articles says what it says. As I
> said, there's surely been battles about where to put every comma, and
> the version that is there now represents some form of consensus about
> how the article should start.
>
> You can't go in and change that, and not expect to be reverted.
>
> --Oskar
Indeed. We have [[WP:BRD]] for that, and I don't see much evidence of D in
this case.