[WikiEN-l] Are there really articles on Wikipedia that need fixing, or just gossip that needs hashed?

[Anthony]

On 8/6/07, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2007, Anthony wrote:
> > > > > Erm, hi, banned user here.
> > > > If I'm not misremembering, you are not banned.  It's simply that you
> > > > have made the personal choice to only be able to edit through TOR, and
> > > > TOR exit nodes are by policy to be blocked on sight.  You are at any
> > > > time free to edit without using TOR.
> > >
> > > Yeah, and gay people aren't banned from marrying, either.  They can marry
> > > th opposite sex just like straight people can.  It's their choice to only
> > > pick marriages that are not allowed; there are plenty of other marriages
> > > which are allowed to them.
> > >
> > True, but how is that relevant?
>
> Because it's an *analogy*.
>
So, all analogies are relevant?

> We recognize that the argument about gays is completely bogus.

We do?  The argument you gave seemed legitimate to me.

> We know very
> well that "sure, you can marry, you just can't marry anyone you'd want to
> marry" is equivalent to "you can't marry at all".
>
Well, no, it's not equivalent.  Similar in effect, perhaps, but not equivalent.

> Likewise, saying "you aren't banned, you're just banned from the only method
> you want to use" is equivalent to "you are banned".
>
OK, so getting back to this analogy thing, if I tell someone who wants
to vandalize Wikipedia that they aren't banned, they're just banned
from vandalism, that's equivalent to telling them that they are
banned?

Hmm, I guess it kind of is, when you think about it...