[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

[George Herbert]

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On 24/05/2011 18:49, George Herbert wrote:
>> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Fred Bauder<fredbaud at fairpoint.net>  wrote:
>>>> Yes, let's replace our elite judgment for that of everyone else.
>>> You've got one word right, "our". You are responsible for this.
>> No, he (and we) are not.  Dan Savage is responsible for this.
>>
> Right - and an egregious case of bullying it is, based on a distinctive
> surname. (Fred's comparison with ED is not off-beam, just missing the
> point IMO.) I'm clear that, in human terms, I have a low opinion of it.
> If our article doesn't give the data that would make it possible to come
> up with an informed opinion on Savage's campaign on that level, then it
> is failing. Too much to ask whether it could do the same on the issues
> of whether this kind of campaigning actually changes minds, or
> discredits freedom of speech, etc. These things are more interesting,
> when it comes down to it, but constraints on OR mean the article is
> really just a compilation of quotes from journalism.

I don't know that it's been reviewed in analytical terms at that
level.  It's so offensive on one level that academics and political
commentators seem to just shy away from it rather than addressing the
rather deep "Hey, what does this say about society/politics/etc".

If that exists then it almost certainly should be covered in the
article.  I am not aware that it does, but this is outside my core
areas of competence (though I was pretty aware of it when it started).


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com