[WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs

[doc]

David Goodman wrote:
> There are few active people here who have not made that mistake, at
> least once or twice; the only way to have no errors is to have no
> encyclopedia.

This is a logical fallacy.

That the only way to make sure no cancer ever enters my body is to 
destroy every living cell within it - is not an argument against ever 
using chemotherapy or carrying out a hysterectomy.


> What we are out to do is produce the most accurate encyclopedia that
> can be produced by our methods--

You said "What we are here to do is to produce the most accurate 
encyclopedia that can be produced" - agreed
"by our methods" - yes and no

What if a more accurate encyclopedia could, in fact, be produced by 
modifying our methods at points?

Our method - open editing, inclusionism and evantualism are certainly 
the great engine that has made the encyclopedia possible - but like all 
engines you sometimes need gears (and breaks) if you want to move to a 
particular destination. We regularly block, protect and delete - those 
are breaks and gears. Wikipedia should always be open to using more or 
less of these as required to manoeuvre.

Dogmatic puritanism, and hang the consequences is as unattractive here 
as it is with any society of zealous true believers.


>and it is already much more accurate than anyone would have suspected beforehand, knowing the chaotic way
> in which it was to be edited. Some people join because they see errors
> and want to correct them; others join  because they see surprisingly
> good things and want to add to them-- that was my personal reason.
> 
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

Wikipedia exists in the real world, has real power, and with that power 
comes responsibility too.

Some errors are fine. Wikipedia is a work in progress.
However, untamed eventualism is not a suitable doctrine for BLP.


Scott MacDonald PhD etc.