On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Brian J Mingus brian.mingus@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.