Oskar, I agree with you totally, and was trying to give some context
for why what you said is the case generally with all discussions of
controversial subjects, and of key religious concepts in particular.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson
<oskarsigvardsson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:42 PM, David Goodman
<dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Even people with similar general understanding
and the utmost good
will can have difficulty in trying to condense complex ides into a
creed, or a lede paragraph.
In the Real World, the question of whether and in what sense Jesus is
an incarnation of God has been debted for over 19 centuries now, and
many of the nastier of the debates have involved single words--in one
case, a single letter. As this is what the intellectual and
spiritual leaders of mankind have done, there is no reason to expect
anything other than that here, unless we are all too ignorant to know
about the controversies or totally indifferent to the issues. The main
advantage we have over the RW is that it is not possible to spill real
blood over the internet.
My point is that in the context of wikipedia, what the lede should
say, the issue has been hammered out by megabytes of discussion and
revision. It's not like you can walk in there and say "hey guys, you
know, the article should really say so-and-so, so I'm just gonna fix
it for ya!". There is a reason the articles says what it says. As I
said, there's surely been battles about where to put every comma, and
the version that is there now represents some form of consensus about
how the article should start.
You can't go in and change that, and not expect to be reverted.
--Oskar
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l