On Oct 27, 2008, at 11:18 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 10/27/2008 11:58:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time, snowspinner@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