On 5/5/06, Cheney Shill wrote:
I agree about the 10 fringe vs. 2 authorities. But
that has nothing to do with this scenario, in which the sources are of equal authority. In
fact, the very fact that you turned a non-ambiguous scenario into an ambiguous scenario is
evidence that the process itself is far too ambiguous. It's not just you; I have not
gotten 1 straight answer on this. Are we not supposed to be judging and reporting on the
facts as they are, not as we think they should be?~~~~Pro-Lick
Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote:
"As they are" in this case is a socially defined fuction, inseperable
from "as we think they should be".
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a socially defined collection of original research.
"In particular, to elaborate on the last comment above, if you are able to prove
something that nobody currently believes, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a
In other words, there is even less need for social interaction. No need to petition
funding for a laboratory to test a hypothesis. No questions about which researcher should
have his name placed first next to a theory.
It seems the policies and problems of the foundation in general (i.e., which projects and
enhancements to fund, which gets a new server, which gets a new lawyer, etc.) are being
confused with those of the encylopedia itself. Yet another area in need of clarification,
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for
2¢/min or less.