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

[Ryan Delaney]

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:32 PM, stevertigo <stvrtg at gmail.com> wrote:

> > 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.
>
> -Stevertigo
> "Make me a deal, and make it straight...
>
>
Obviously, pursuing this further isn't a good use of either of our time.

- causa sui