On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:50 PM, George Herbert
<george.herbert(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Brian J Mingus
<brian.mingus(a)colorado.edu> wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Rob
<gamaliel8(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Brian J Mingus
> <brian.mingus(a)colorado.edu> wrote:
> > I believe you will have a hard time justifying your claim that my
comment
> is
> > false (not to mention that it is a slur). It should be easy to show
that
the
> article is curated by at least one, and probably several, biased
> anti-Santorum contributors.
The onus is on you to prove that such a broad slur on other Wikipedia
editors is true. Even if we accept this as truth, the solution to
such problems is typically the eyes of more editors and not deletion.
This strikes me as indirection. If someone claims that an article is
biased
then they are also claiming that the process
governing its creation is
biased. Such a claim is not a slur, it is a purported statement of fact.
However, you would say that the claim is invalid because to claim that an
article is biased is to necessarily not assume good faith. Following your
line of indirection, it isn't possible to claim that an article is biased
because you would necessary violate the principle of good faith, ie,
implicitly or explicitly claiming that particular editors are biased. I
believe you would rather follow this line of reasoning because it directs
attention away from the real issues at hand.
I do not read the article as anti-Santorum or biased.
If it were anti-Santorum and biased, this discussion would likely have
taken place on the article talk page, with specific examples of
paragraphs, sentences, sections, quotes, source selection etc. which
were improper or unbalanced.
The actual discussion has included essentially none of this.
It's somewhat of a jump of faith to extrapolate from this that there's
nothing wrong at the detail level with the article, but that claim
could be made and defended credibly.
The claims of things wrong with it that are being made are, in
Wikipedia terms, novel interpretations. BOLD allows us to take wider
views, but it does not allow one to merely assert a particular wider
view to be absolute and unchallengeable truth.
Yes, several people here believe that it's a problem. No, not
everyone does. No, you do not appear to have a consensus on your
side, much less a majority.
Under those conditions, BOLD fails, and we revert to the details and
to standard interpretations. About which no detailed problems have
been asserted so far...
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com
If only there were a way to quantify notability I believe this problem would
be much easier to tackle. I am personally not inclined to go through the
article point by point and try to figure out what ought to be there. In
general I think we can show that the article is too long and ought to be
rewritten in a shorter, more concise form without also having to debate
every sentence there. As was previously stated, Wikipedia is not the
end-all-be-all of information on a topic, but in this case it comes pretty
close. That's not how it's supposed to be..