Jake Nelson wrote:
I've seen a lot of dodging of the "what does it hurt?" question, the
most
I've seen is "it DOES hurt" or "it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia".
The
first response isn't an answer, and begs the question to be repeated.
As to
the second... what do you define an encyclopedia as? LKWR is the only
one
I've seen outline criteria (back on 10/31), 4 of which describe
Wikipedia
excellently, and I disagree with the other 2.
My main question is that it makes Wikipedia look ridiculous, and makes information harder to find. If I search for "Michael Jordan" and get 4,000 results consisting of every person who has ever been named "Michael Jordan", that's *much* less useful than the current state, and a bit laughable. Wikipedia is not a geneological database after all.
The Cunctator stated This is a straw man argument.
That is The Cunc's usual reply. Don't make a credible case, just call your opponent's argument a "straw man" argument. 'Nuff said. Any chance of a more detailed argument rather than an empty cliché, Cunc?
JT
_________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
On 11/8/03 5:20 PM, "James Duffy" jtdire@hotmail.com wrote:
On 11/7/03 3:23 AM, "Delirium" delirium@rufus.d2g.com wrote:
My main question is that it makes Wikipedia look ridiculous, and makes information harder to find. If I search for "Michael Jordan" and get 4,000 results consisting of every person who has ever been named "Michael Jordan", that's *much* less useful than the current state, and a bit laughable. Wikipedia is not a geneological database after all.
The Cunctator stated: This is a straw man argument.
That is The Cunc's usual reply. Don't make a credible case, just call your opponent's argument a "straw man" argument. 'Nuff said. Any chance of a more detailed argument rather than an empty cliché, Cunc?
Funny, I seem to have made many replies in this discussion other than "This is a straw man argument".
Rather than the insulting, ad hominem attacks, why don't we actually discuss the validity of my claim?
In other words, do you dispute that what Delirium wrote is a straw man argument?
I claim that it is; in other words, that a) there do not exist 4000 results consisting of every person who has ever been named "Michael Jordan" on Wikipedia, and that b) noone is advocating creating entries for every person who has ever been named Michael Jordan.
Using such a nonexistent hypothetical scenario to argue against the inclusion of (to pick a specific example) entries on some of the victims of September 11 is a classic straw man argument.
He has failed to show how what is being advocated leads necessarily to what he fears.
Now, rather than simply saying that I use empty cliches, do you care to make an reasonable rebuttal?