On Tuesday 11 March 2008 11:53, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 11/03/2008, Kurt Maxwell Weber
<kmw(a)armory.com> wrote:
"The responsibility for justifying inclusion
of any content rests firmly
with the editor seeking to include it.--Hu12 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2008
(UTC)"
Thoughts?
It's the rule we've always applied for disputed content in articles,
if memory serves.
Sure, and that's spot-on--but what you (and everyone else who makes this
argument) ignore is that *that is not the case here*.
As you can see by the diff I posted earlier, this discussion is not in the
context of discussion of a statement within an article whose accuracy is
challenged, but rather as part of a discussion over the appropriateness of
the subject for coverage in the encyclopedia altogether.
It's one thing to say, "You have to back up your statement in the article on
lawnmower racing that says that Peyton Manning is the world champion
lawnmower racer." It's another thing entirely to say, "The onus is upon you
to prove that we should even have an article on lawnmower racing in the first
place."
The latter is, essentially, the situation here.
--
Kurt Weber
<kmw(a)armory.com>