[WikiEN-l] Straw man

[Bjorn Lindqvist]

> The slippery slope argument only becomes a fallacy if you make an
> unreasonable conclusion connecting happening A and happening B.  Folks
> were debating the merits of including ~3,000 victims of 9/11
> individually as articles in Wikipedia. Asking what this means for other
> victims of other disasters and crimes around the world and in history is
> not a far stretch. That is why "rounding up" all arguments of this type
> to fallacy is not fair. 

There seems to be a deep disagreement on what rules is and how they
should be interpreted on WP. Slippery slope argumentation which seems
similar to Aristotoles proving a contradiction debating technique in
absurdium or something, I don't really know much about the subject,
might be valid. But whether it is or not doesn't really
matter. Wikipedia is fortunately not ruled by an armada of lawyers who
read rules literally, but by an armada of rationally thinking
individuals and Jimbo. People that know that HOW the rules work RIGHT
NOW is important. NOT how they WOULD work if some troll comes around
and tries to invoke lawyerism on us.

It is unlikely that that will happen. And even if it DOES happen,
those few trolls will be so few that they are barely noticeable. Just
like they are today. And then the rules can obviously change if that
is necessary just like they did because of Michael the Vandal. 

So therefore we can have articles about the 9/11 victims, but leave
out mav's dog. Why? Common sense!

BL