On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Brian J Mingus
<brian.mingus(a)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.