On 7/28/05, steve v <vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
--- Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/28/05, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au>
> wrote:
Any crank can attach twenty spurious references
with no effort at all. But
that hardly makes citing one's sources
problematic
in itself.
Odd you should mention this, David. One particular
user attached ten
spurious references in a VfD, none of which back him
up. But he
pretends they do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/De_f…
Ah, Peter - that was a poke at Jdtrl! How sly.
He bends over, who am I to resist a poke?
But no, it's a poke at spurious arguments from any source. We all know
the logical fallacies and the debating flaws, the argument ad homonym
and so on. If an editor claims to be an expert and then offers up dodgy
references in supposed support, I'm inclined to think the expertise
lies more in the field of self-promotion than shining the light of
knowledge upon Wikipedia.
--
Peter in Canberra