o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
* Repost -- fixing line length for those who do not have wide-screen computers.
Citing cases of "Priority Inversion", in this case where a few editors declare their "consensus" as an excuse for deleting relevant and sourced information.
Case 2.
Article: Charles Peirce. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Peirce
Section: Scholastic realism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Peirce#Scholastic_realism
Edit: Revision as of 01:49, 11 June 200601:49, 11 June 2006 by Wylie Ali (?Scholastic realism - deleting section as explained on talk page) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Peirce&diff=next&o...
Entire section deleted by "new user" Wylie Ali. This section was well-documented with both primary and secondary source citations.
The explanation given on the talk page by Wylie Ali is this:
| ==Deleted Material: Scholastic Realism== | | It is clear from above that there is a concensus that this article is | pitched to journal level and not general educated audience as it should be. | For that reason and others, I'm moving the Sholastic realism section to here | (for consideration ;-) ). Besides the fact that most of it is taken up with | an interpretation dispute among scholars (and it takes sides in that dispute), | the first sentence calls "well known" something readers will have never heard | of and the second sentence is obviously POV. The second sentence also assumes | wrongly that one who believes that reality depends on many minds instead of one | is not an idealist. The part beginning "Third" is weird because if Peirce's | doctrine is not about realism vs. idealism, then why did this very paragraph | start out talking about realism vs. idealism? Why not leave the latter topic | out of this section entirely instead of putting it in and suddenly saying well | Peirce is not really talking about that anyway. | --[[User:Wylie Ali|Wylie Ali]] 01:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Note the spelling of "concensus". You will see it again.
As far as I know, this section came in with an earlier Nupedia article by a recognized Peirce scholar that formed the initial material of the Wikipedia article. It is true that some of what it says is controversial among the scholars so affected, which is par for the course in any article about any philosopher worthy of note. Standard practice in WP dictates dynamic balance not wholesale deletion as a solution.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Jon Awbrey wrote: For example, under the proper ordering of priorities a statement that is relevant and sourced should not be deleted in favor of an opinion that is unsourced just because the source is not the favorite writer of 2 or 3 editors or because the sourced statement contradicts the personal POVs of 2 or 3 editors. But this is actually the routine way that things are done in WP.
Rosa, Michael wrote: Cite please - preferable at least a dozen or so of examples, they should be easy to find if this is really the "routine way" of doing things on WP. This is a persistent, recurrent and systematic pattern in your emails that I have observed, you describe something that you claim is taking place without giving any specific and real-life examples.
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Jon_Awbrey o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o