In a message dated 5/15/2004 5:28:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, fredbaud@ctelco.net writes: Much of the fire, as opposed to the light, that eminates from Wik concerns editing disputes which do not affect the content of an article, being over such questions as whether Vietnam is in Southeast Asia or in East Asia, or whether Mongolia is in Central Asia or in East Asia, etc. This whole post is kind of silly, but then again its assumptions are kind of silly too. As for his editing disputes not affecting the content of an article, the examples given prove that this is not the case. Geographic regions are important ways of classifying political entities, cultures, flora and fauna, etc. Misclassifying a country certainly does matter.

So no matter whether Wik "wins" or not, and he does usually win as he never gives up or wastes time talking with other users about disputes, the article itself is basically unaffected.

Why does Wik usually win. In fact, he usually comes under attack. And if he is right, what is wrong with winning. Are we expected to let everyone, including those who are wrong, win equally? If he is right, why should he give up? If the other user is just as persistent as he is, but motivated by some agenda and the debate has been going on for ever, why should he keep reiterating the old arguments to people who resort to rhetoric rather than fact? As for the articles being basically unaffected, that would only be true if we want the articles composed entirely of platitudes. The importance of the articles lies in the details.

He does affect Wikipedia as he serves for others as a model of how to impose your will and get your way. No, now you are assuming that his way is wrong, but he is able to get away with imposing it anyway. That is patently false. In fact, this ad hominem attack is simply a way for the poster to impose his will and get away with it. He will also (eventually) serve as an example of what happens if you continually buck the minimum requests Wikipedia makes of users in the way of etiquette.

The only really interesting point here. Does etiquette mean that we have to succumb to people who try to use Wikipedia to further their own agendas. In fact, calling etiquettte is being used as a way "impose your will and get your way" at the expense of accuracy. (Not that many of Wik's opponents are actually paradigms of etiquette).

Fred