[WikiEN-l] Category:<Subjective-pejorative>, weak consensus, and ! NPOV

[stevertigo]

--- Mark Gallagher
<m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:

> WP:POINT doesn't trump WP:NPOV, and I never said it
> did.  One is a core 
> principle, the other is a page which, like many of
> our policies, acts 
> only to restate "don't be a dick" in more socially
> acceptable language. 
> Now, there are multiple ways of making a point. 
> Some of them involve 
> being a dick.  You appear to be choosing one of
> those ways, as WP:POINT 
> makes clear.  It would be nice if you could restrain
> yourself.
> 

No, WP:DBAD uses unsuitably dickish language itself
and thus had to be removed to meta. In the hierarchy
its probably lower than {{proposed}}, though the
typically dickish citing of it would leave newbies to
believe otherwise. Please dont mistake casual
terseness for dickishness. I certainly dont.

> > I disagree with the lawsuit paranoia, and dislike
> its usage as a crutch in arguments wherin a plain
> > application of basic bonehead-level NPOV will
> suffice.
> 
> Like Ilmari the other day, I just threw that in for
> discussion's sake. 
> Discussion is this thing we have occasionally
> although, I admit, not 
> very often.

Yes, this 'discussion' is in contrast with the
terseness thing.

> You think the category is incompatible with NPOV.  I
> think you're right. 
>   There are those, however, who do not (or who have
> not considered the 
> issue, and gone along with the cat because it's
> there). There are two 
> ways for you to get your way: you can either
> convince them you're right, 
> or you can grind their faces into dust.  Now, you're
> not in much of a 
> position these days to do any face-grinding, so
> we're just left with the 
> former option.

Dont make this personal. This seems to be a rarer
case, and this is why I brought it to the list. The
basic point is that "consensus" only works if its
overwhelmingly in one direction or another, and (as I
think Cobb was alluding to) AFD doesnt always work as
a discussion forum. Where there are sharp divides
between actual consensus and NPOV, speaks to a deeper
issue of leadership with regard to NPOV, and this
relates to the problem of newbie indoctrination.

> The traditional approach taken when trying to change
> someone else's mind 
> is, "your opinion differs from mine.  How can I best
> state my message to 
> convince you I'm right?"  The approach *you* are
> taking is, "your 
> opinion differs from mine.  How can you be *so
> stupid* as to disagree 
> with me?  Can't you idiots see the bleeding obvious?
>  I'm disgusted with 
> the lot of you!"

I was simply stating my case in a clear and
incontrovertible way. I dont see the need to make an
argument weak just for sake of endless discussion with
those who hold to a relativist position, or to appease
those, who fail AGF and assume dickishness where there
is none. I dropped a note, to bring some attn to it. 

Stevertigo


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com