On 8/20/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Hmm, I might be convinced by what you are saying here, but this example does not seem compelling to me. I think, based on my limited recollection of this case, that it more or less turned out that the "alleged administrative adventures" were more or less cooked up, i.e. that this was a non-scandal. But I would suspect that reasonable Republicans would take the same view that I do: the overall incident is still notable, of course.
Yes, it was a bad example :) A better example might be a scientific study which is criticised by a religious group. Science-minded editors would probably consider that criticism of little interest. Others might find it relevant. Similarly, a scientific evaluation of a paranormal claim might not be considered worth much of a mention by most editors of the paranormal article (presumably those interested in such things...)
Now, to really let my biases show, I would probably be a bad offender in these cases. I tend to consider scientific studies of paranormal or pseudoscience claims *not* to be relevant, as the mere fact of the study lends too much credence to the field. Probably why I keep well away from such articles :)
Steve