Matt R matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 10 14:25:56 UTC 2004
--- Jens Ropers <ropers at ropersonline.com> wrote:
Again, I hold that the "review club" should be very open to all comers, just as the "edit club". We may choose a more disciplined approach within the "review club" and be more harsh about disturbances, but we absolutely should not ask for (and entrants should not mention their) academic qualifications at the doorstep. Their ''actual writing'' should be their sole guarantor. With reference to this post: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/ 030499.html If renowned academic Alice cannot conclusively prove and defend her view of things and layman Bob can, then we should follow Bob. We should NOT believe something is right just because "the right people" say it. That's a reverse ad-hominem. Go read the [[ad hominem]] article. Do it now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Yea. Thanks for actually looking up the [[ad hominem]] and [[appeal to authority]] articles! :-)
My referencing of a "reverse [[Ad hominem]]" instead of [[Appeal to authority]] had the "subtle" ;-) advantage of carrying a negative connotation: Because I regard what I described before as a ''bad'' thing (at least in the WP context) -- whereas an [[Appeal to authority]] per definition needn't necessarily be bad. Sneaky me. ;-)
-- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com