This is a fallacy.
That the only way to make sure no cancer ever enters my body is to destroy every cell within it - is not an argument against ever using chemotherapy or carrying out a hysterectomy.
"What we are here to do is to produce the most accurate encyclopedia that can be produced" - agreed "by our methods" - yes and no
What if a more accurate encyclopedia could, in fact be produced, by modifying our methods at points?
Our method - open editing, inclusionism and evantualism are certainly the great engine that has made the encyclopedia possible - but like all engines you sometimes need gears (and breaks) if you want to move to a particular destination. We regularly block, protect and delete - those are breaks and gears. Wikipedia should always be open to using more or less of these as required to manoeuvre.
Dogmatic puritanism, and hang the consequences is as unattractive here as it is with any society of zealous true believers.
Wikipedia exists in the real world, has real power, and with that power comes responsibility too. It is time for Wikipedians to grow up.
Scott MacDonald PhD etc.
David Goodman wrote:
There are few active people here who have not made that mistake, at least once or twice; the only way to have no errors is to have no encyclopedia.
What we are out to do is produce the most accurate encyclopedia that can be produced by our methods--and it is already much more accurate than anyone would have suspected beforehand, knowing the chaotic way in which it was to be edited. Some people join because they see errors and want to correct them; others join because they see surprisingly good things and want to add to them-- that was my personal reason.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG