Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
In that sentence there are buried assumptions as
follows:
1. There are people on wikipedia who will not permit
quality.
2. People who won't permit quality are aggressive.
3. There is a clear unambiguous metric for quality.
4. Aggressive people who won't permit quality will
follow an article.
5. 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.
I disagree that even Mrs. Palins article will fulfill the claim
of my 5th paraphrase.
Long term, (think 5 years down the line, or even say twice
the current age of wikipedia itself) those little problems
will be transcended.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen