Oskar, I agree with you totally, and was trying to give some context for why what you said is the case generally with all discussions of controversial subjects, and of key religious concepts in particular.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:42 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Even people with similar general understanding and the utmost good will can have difficulty in trying to condense complex ides into a creed, or a lede paragraph.
In the Real World, the question of whether and in what sense Jesus is an incarnation of God has been debted for over 19 centuries now, and many of the nastier of the debates have involved single words--in one case, a single letter. As this is what the intellectual and spiritual leaders of mankind have done, there is no reason to expect anything other than that here, unless we are all too ignorant to know about the controversies or totally indifferent to the issues. The main advantage we have over the RW is that it is not possible to spill real blood over the internet.
My point is that in the context of wikipedia, what the lede should say, the issue has been hammered out by megabytes of discussion and revision. It's not like you can walk in there and say "hey guys, you know, the article should really say so-and-so, so I'm just gonna fix it for ya!". There is a reason the articles says what it says. As I said, there's surely been battles about where to put every comma, and the version that is there now represents some form of consensus about how the article should start.
You can't go in and change that, and not expect to be reverted.
--Oskar
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l