[WikiEN-l] Can sweet reason still work on en:wp? Occasionally.

stevertigo stvrtg at gmail.com
Sat Oct 24 01:32:52 UTC 2009

> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:34 AM, stevertigo <stvrtg at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I would prefer we make the losers of an argument actually write notes
>> of capitulation. How else am I going to know they aren't just going to
>> come back and screw with me some more later?
Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's hard for me to even answer this question, since it assumes a
> perspective to editing Wikipedia that I don't subscribe to, and don't want
> to. Why on earth would you even approach editing on Wikipedia in terms of
> "making" the "losers" "capitulate" to us so that we don't get "screwed"? I
> really would encourage you to rethink this, because you seem to think that
> policy ought to be written to accommodate this paranoid attitude that other
> people here don't share.

I was being facetious. Sort of. The term "notes of capitulation"
should have been a giveaway (though I probably could have capitalized
it to be clearer).

In point of fact though, we do sometimes have to employ the
[[adversarial system]] to dealing with other editors. Not always, but
sometimes. In such cases its still necessary to be clear with one
another. So, if someone misrepresents my argument (as with your usage
of "paranoid attitude" above), I have to point this problem out, and
as a consequence their argument is weaker, and they lose a certain
point within the overall debate. Some people do like to Wikilawyer
people to death just by saying things like "POINT," "IAR" or even
"DISRUPT," but that doesn't change the fact if their arguments are in
substance, weaker.

Granted, there is some ambiguity about which policies trump which that
need discernment and Arbcom to sort out. But language is still
nevertheless atomic: Debates can be broken down into arguments,
arguments can be broken down into points, points can be broken down
into statements, statements can be examined for logic and
terminological accuracy...  In that context of logical, rational,
argument - just as its quite honorable for one to admit making a
mistake - conceding a point and then re-examining one's own argument
is an essential aspect of a civil editorial discussion.

"Make me a deal, and make it straight...

More information about the WikiEN-l mailing list