dpbsmith(a)verizon.net wrote:
>From: Timwi
<timwi(a)gmx.net>
>We promise that you can "edit this page," not
>"create an article." The policy
>is "zero-threshold editing," not
>"zero-threshold article creation.'
This is just hair-splitting. Just because
we've never mentioned page
creation in any sort of "promise", doesn't mean we should stop offering it.
We should stop offering it because IMHO a very small threshold for creating
an article--such as creating a free, anonymous account--would be more helpful
to our goal of building "a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" than a
zero threshold for creating an article.
We have already established elsewhere in this thread that you're wrong.
A number of good and useful contributions are made by non-logged-in
people. Experience shows that if we require them to register, they just
won't, hence we lose out on those contributions. Therefore, erecting a
barrier to article creation, no matter how small, is NOT "helpful to our
goal of building an encyclopedia".
And my point is that we would not breaking any
explicit or implied
promise by so doing.
Which, as I mentioned, is not a reasosn for doing it.
I heard Grace Hopper talk once, and she said "I
am going to give you a gift.
For the rest of the life, every time you say the words 'because we have
always done it that way,' my ghost will appear and haunt you for twenty-four
hours.'"
This is the fallacy fallacy, or argument by fallacy. Just because "we've
always done it that way" is a fallacious argument, doesn't mean it's
wrong to continue doing something as before.
Timwi