On 8/3/07, Ken Arromdee <arromdee(a)rahul.net> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, K P wrote:
Can someone please link directly to a current
Wikipedia article, that
should be changed, and list a proper reference to it that is not being
used, to show the damage being done by this fracas to Wikipedia? Just
one example of a specific article, and what should be in it, according
to a highly reliable source--not a dozen, just one.
Like the generalized attack sites version, the harm caused by this is mostly
in the discussion pages, not in the article pages. I hope you are not
claiming that unless it's directly deleted from an article page, it isn't
damage.
I can't claim anything without any basis for understanding, and since
there doesn't seem to be any forthcoming that is a civil presentation
of just what has been done, I'm not claiming anything.
But I don't see how you went from the question I asked to what my
claims might or might not be.
I thought it was fairly straightforward:
"I won't believe in damage unless you show me an article that was damaged by
removing a reference."
"I hope you don't mean that the only kind of damage is in articles."
You used quotes, but that's not what I said within the quotes.
"Can someone please link directly to a current Wikipedia article, that
should be changed, and list a proper reference to it that is not being
used, to show the damage being done by this fracas to Wikipedia? Just
one example of a specific article, and what should be in it, according
to a highly reliable source--not a dozen, just one."
If the information is being kept out, and it is legitimate
information, then certainly there are other references available,
somewhere, that will contain this information. And presumably these
references are not in the article, because if they were, the
information would not be missing from the article. If it is only a
fracas on a talk page, and no resulting damage anywhere to article
content on Wikipedia, then that should be clarified to all who have to
read this: there is no damage to Wikipedia article content.
I think I made a simple enough request, and muddying it up pretty much
just shows that it will never be about damage to the encyclopledia,
but always about spreading gossip--it's the equivalent of calling
someone a troll, or of discussing a gossip column about an editor as
evidence that Wikipedia is damaged. This is not my belief system, but
my opinion from watching this.
Please simply quote me, when quoting me.
KP