On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 01:27:20 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
There are those who consider "academic expert on webcomix" to be an oxymoron. There are also others who claim expertise in DRV right now who support deletion.
To be specific, Dragonfiend is claiming expertise but singularly failing to substantiate said claim when asked directly several times; in the meantime conducting increasingly shrill personal attacks on Phil.
For sure. I have asked Dragonfiend to calm down, these comments are out of line. And I apologise to Phil for not doing that yesterday, because I certainly did notice.
We have an ongoing RFAR on pseudoscience where an expert has been pushing his novel theories. How am I supposed to ell if Phil is using a novel interpretation of what is significant? Secondary sources, not "I know better". And actually I trust Phil's judgment, just as I trust Tony Sidaway's, but Tony usually brings better arguments than "I know better".
Well, yes. But does an expert count more than five people who know nothing about a field? I submit it does. Wikipedia is supposed to respect experts, after all, not say "fuck off, you were outvoted by us."
Like I said, I trust Phil's judgment, but the style was excessively brusque.
Guy (JzG)