Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
In that sentence there are buried assumptions as follows:
- There are people on wikipedia who will not permit
quality.
People who won't permit quality are aggressive.
There is a clear unambiguous metric for quality.
Aggressive people who won't permit quality will
follow an article.
- Over the long term, the dynamics of wikipedias
practices will not prevent editors who will not allow quality on wikipedia from dragging it down to the level that they aggressively and persistently insist on bringing it down to. There are no working heuristics to allow it to transcend that attractor.
*Understanding* the logical flaws of those 5 statements is left to the student.
It would be rash to say you couldn't find any examples where this is true - there is a large selection of articles. It might be a fair model for the article about, for example, a controversial Governor of Alaska who didn't get chosen as a candidate for Vice-President. But you could click Random Article for a little while before you came up with an article to which this argument really would apply.
Charles