Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:58:23 -0600, Bryan Derksen
That's an appeal-to-motive fallacy. Even if
this were true (and don't
forget to assume good faith) and it's the reason Phil is complaining,
it's still entirely possible that the "reliable sources" guideline is
still flawed and Phil's arguments sound.
Of course. It's just a bizarre coincidence that every time an article
on something from teh internets is deleted as unverifiable, it's
always our policies which are wrong, and never the users arguing for
the retention of stuff which is discussed exclusively by other people
But you just used the exact same fallacy again. What does it matter what
the motive is (which, BTW, you're still only making guesses at) when the
argument itself is still sound?
Sometimes I think it would be good to move all pop
culture stuff to a
sister project where rampant fandom and scatalogical humour will
present less of a problem.
A fork of that magnitude would cleft Wikipedia in twain, and I doubt
either half would be the better for it. It'd be a toss-up which one gets
to be called "Wikipedia" at any rate.