[Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

[Anthony]

On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Peter Damian
<peter.damian at btinternet.com> wrote:
> I gave a list of problematic articles.  Here is
> one of them again.
>
> http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/08/argumentum-ad-baculum.html

I really can't comment on that one without first learning more about
argumentum ad baculum (I agree with you that the Wikipedia article is
not a good one at presenting it - the examples of fallacies and the
example of a non-fallacy are not even in the same form).  The link you
provided just says Wikipedia is wrong, but it doesn't really explain
why.  Yes, there is an implicit step missing from the argument "that
you should not do that which you do not want to do", but that's not
the same as saying the argument is fallacious.