[WikiEN-l] Original research or common sense inferral?

[K P]

On 4/4/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:42:01 -0600, Bryan Derksen
> <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> >>>> What, like the personal essays on character traits of various
> >>>> characters in video games?  I would say that is *objectively* crap
> :-)
> >>
> >>> You'd be wrong.
> >>
> >> Not really.  Personal essays are not allowed by policy, after all.
>
> >You're shifting the goalposts from the subject of the article to the
> >quality and style of the writing in it, reread the part of my response
> >that you snipped and that should be clear. It's a fallacy along the
> >lines of "pies laced with arsenic are dangerous, ergo we should ban
> pies."
>
> Not really.  I was treating the concept as a whole: personal essays on
> the character traits of video game characters. * Every such essay I
> have seen has sucked royally.*  I don't discount the possibility that
> properly cited encyclopaedic treatment of the same subject may be
> possible, and it would be quite refreshing to see such a section.
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --



They do suck royally.  I've worked with a couple of pop culture topics on
FAC, with editors willing to work hard, and the results have been
spectacular, with articles even my grandmother could read, understand and
appreciate.  Editors think allowing them to put their crap on-line at
Wikipedia (crap including their game character analysis, COI biographies,
and their resumes) is doing them a favor--I think it's conspiring against
them to make them look like shit.

On the other hand, damn people get hostile when you ask for a citation, or
reference book.  Once more I am told that a definition is "self-evident" and
doesn't need  a dictionary.  My my.

KP