[Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and...

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 10/24/2010 8:53:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk writes:


> Secondly an assessment on what constitutes encyclopaedic information. 
> Does an article absolutely have to mention each and every rumour, 
> half-truth, or crackpot opinion? Encyclopaedic information doesn't 
> change from day to day or even from month to month. >>
> 

Straw man argument again.
No one is arguing the contrary side, so you win, which is your point.
But it's not related to what we're actually doing.
And you're trying to paint your *opponents* of which your straw man creates 
none, with a broad brush.

Stick to what's actually occurring.
What sources would be deemed reliable for an article on Statin or Flu Virus 
or Joan of Arc ?

When you go off careening off the walls, no one listens.

W