On 05/11/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 00:25:05 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
In other words, there was consensus to delete, a strong majority to endorse deletion, but you "know better". Maybe you do, but doesn't it strike you as just the *teensiest* bit arrogant?
It may be worth pointing out that Phil is an academic expert in the area in question, so his opinion is actually worth more on the particular subject.
There are those who consider "academic expert on webcomix" to be an oxymoron. There are also others who claim expertise in DRV right now who support deletion.
To be specific, Dragonfiend is claiming expertise but singularly failing to substantiate said claim when asked directly several times; in the meantime conducting increasingly shrill personal attacks on Phil.
We have an ongoing RFAR on pseudoscience where an expert has been pushing his novel theories. How am I supposed to ell if Phil is using a novel interpretation of what is significant? Secondary sources, not "I know better". And actually I trust Phil's judgment, just as I trust Tony Sidaway's, but Tony usually brings better arguments than "I know better".
Well, yes. But does an expert count more than five people who know nothing about a field? I submit it does. Wikipedia is supposed to respect experts, after all, not say "fuck off, you were outvoted by us."
- d.