Christiano Moreschi wrote:
Oh, come off it, that's ridiculous (I assume
you're all still talking about attack sites). Attack sites cannot possibly be relevant
to more than a score of articles. The fact that such a tiny number of articles clogs up so
much drama is ridiculous. Wikipedia has much more grave problems.
Respectfully, I disagree.
It's true that the issue itself is tiny. But I think the proposed
solution -- one apparently currently in use -- undermines one of
Wikpedia's fundamental mechanisms, that of open discussion leading to
community consensus.
I feel similarly about a number of things that the Bush administration
has gotten up to. On the grand scale, their current transgressions --
the Iraq war aside -- really aren't that large. A little snooping, some
dubious arrests, a little God mixed in with government, a bit of crony
capitalism. But I believe that accepting them puts the US on a path that
could result in the destruction of core principles that I value deeply.
I'm glad to let go any number of things where I'm on the wrong side of
the consensus; I trust that we'll work them out eventually. But I
believe that a damnatio memoriae policy a dose of mandatory goodthink
will harm our very ability to work things out.
William
--
William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri