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

[George Herbert]

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 5:28 AM, George Herbert
> <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In this particular, I am vexed and confused.  If the longer article
>> makes him look better, why in the flying spaghetti monster's name are
>> those advocating human dignity here asking to shorten it?
>
> Because people should read the article about *him* to find out who he
> is, not the article on the neologism. Similarly, people should read
> the article on the person who started the neologism to find out about
> him. The article on the neologism can be short and to the point, and
> leave people to go read the articles on the people if they want more.
> The way to get balance is to look at articles on other neologisms and
> see how long those are.

You're missing the point - His reaction, and critical reaction, to the
neologism are the aspects that make him look better.

If we cover those in the article on him, widely separated from the
neologism and its origins, then it doesn't counterbalance the
neologism's fundamentally offensive nature nearly as effectively as if
it's in the neologism article.

Doing "our usual thing" increases the apparent damage to Santorum.
The way it is now, with the longer article on the neologism, is the
best balance I can see from making him look reasonable.

The advocacy of shortening it is directly and inappropriately
counterproductive from the goal of minimizing harm to Mr. Santorum.


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