[WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

[charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com]

> It's hard to know what brought on this personal attack.  If there is 
> anything "subtly misleading" in my posts let him present the facts that 
> support that.  Otherwise, I can only assume that Charles' statement was 
> made out of the sheer pleasure of being argumentative.
> 
> Ray

Went through my Trash folder, results appended (my comments in [ ]).

Charles

*We have no need to be strict about notability. [Oh really]

*Having "non-encyclopedic topics" (whatever that means) does not make us a worse encyclopaedia. [Not ‘whatever that means’]

*>>Scientific papers are secondary sources. The experimental or
>>observational data that the papers draw on are the primary sources.
>>    
>>
>The data is usually published in the paper, so the paper is the primary source.

Another non-sequitur. [Silly quibble with Thomas Dalrton.]

*Idolatry is not a valid basis for argument.  [Personal attack on Steve Bennett or stevertigo, or someone]

*I think your response is just another way of saying that you do not know. [Sort of personal attack or sniping at stevertigo]

*Much of what is said to the media in a first instance (is) off the cuff and not necessarily supported by a broad consensus. [Well, an individual is being interviewed.]

*Stonewalling is indeed an effective tactic.  The only problem with it is that it pisses people off just as effectively. [Silence is golden, you know. Contradicts the ‘off the cuff’ comment, too.]

*[>Because the topic of Wikipedia's governance and processes of control
>are typical fodder for trolls, who are far more interested in hurting
>the project than helping it.

That's like saying that democracy is too precious to be put under the 
control of the general population. [Oh really. Arguing with stevertigo again. Trolls really do go wild about constitutional definitions.]

*>And indeed, a constitutional monarchy is the best analogy for the
>English Wikipedia at the moment.

Charles I discovered the hard way that there are limits to monarchy. [He wasn’t  a constitutional monarch, as you know. Seems to be sniping at Jimbo now.]

*When a process becomes backlogged it is evidently not scaling well. [No.]

*>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
>suggests that whether or not primary sources can be used depends on
>how public the figure is. For non-public figures, it says "material
>from primary sources should generally not be used," whereas for public
>figures it says "material from primary sources should be used with
>care" though that is under the heading "Presumption in favor of
>privacy".

Court judgements (and, for that matter, court filings by the disputants, 
and even trial transcripts) are a matter of public record.  This is an 
important component to maintaining the transparency of the judicial 
system.  Privacy should not be a factor with this kind of material. [Privacy is written into WP:BLP, so this is not the point at all.]

*Being "not supposed to do it" is not a strong enough excuse for not 
doing it.  One shouldn't become doctrinnaire about sources when an 
article is just started; that only quashes the inspiration to do 
something. [Wrong. And somewhat wrong.]

*Fractal systems incorporate a lot of randomness. [Tosh. They may or may not.]

* I do not believe that reliability should be or even can be one of our goals. [Really.]

*The queen retains her power by not exercisiing it. [Bad history – 1973 general election.]

*A statistical mathematical model should be capable of marginalizing the effect that idiots have on the article. [Or not.]

*The alternative would be for the reporters to learn what putting Wikipedia in proper perspective means.  They might even have to check their facts. That would not be the easy way out for them. [Implication that our coverage suffers from a lack of professionalism. Anyone believe this is helpful?]
 

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam