The slippery slope argument only becomes a fallacy if you make an unreasonable conclusion connecting happening A and happening B. Folks were debating the merits of including ~3,000 victims of 9/11 individually as articles in Wikipedia. Asking what this means for other victims of other disasters and crimes around the world and in history is not a far stretch. That is why "rounding up" all arguments of this type to fallacy is not fair.
There seems to be a deep disagreement on what rules is and how they should be interpreted on WP. Slippery slope argumentation which seems similar to Aristotoles proving a contradiction debating technique in absurdium or something, I don't really know much about the subject, might be valid. But whether it is or not doesn't really matter. Wikipedia is fortunately not ruled by an armada of lawyers who read rules literally, but by an armada of rationally thinking individuals and Jimbo. People that know that HOW the rules work RIGHT NOW is important. NOT how they WOULD work if some troll comes around and tries to invoke lawyerism on us.
It is unlikely that that will happen. And even if it DOES happen, those few trolls will be so few that they are barely noticeable. Just like they are today. And then the rules can obviously change if that is necessary just like they did because of Michael the Vandal.
So therefore we can have articles about the 9/11 victims, but leave out mav's dog. Why? Common sense!
BL
So therefore we can have articles about the 9/11 victims, but leave out mav's dog. Why? Common sense!
BL
I have been out of the loop on most of this dicussion, but have no position on the current obscure argument about logical fallacies. I strenuously object to including 9/11 victims because they are not encyclopedic.
TUF-KAT
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree