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

[Fred Bauder]

> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Brian J Mingus
> <brian.mingus at colorado.edu> wrote:
>> This strikes me as indirection. If someone claims that an article is
>> biased
>> then they are also claiming that the process governing its creation is
>> biased. Such a claim is not a slur, it is a purported statement of
>> fact.
>> However, you would say that the claim is invalid because to claim that
>> an
>> article is biased is to necessarily not assume good faith. Following
>> your
>> line of indirection, it isn't possible to claim that an article is
>> biased
>> because you would necessary violate the principle of good faith, ie,
>> implicitly or explicitly claiming that particular editors are biased. I
>> believe you would rather follow this line of reasoning because it
>> directs
>> attention away from the real issues at hand.
>
> This bunch of wikilawyering ignores the fact that you directly called
> the *contributors* and not the article biased.  And you've doubled
> down on the baseless accusations by accusing me of trying to distract
> from the issue at hand.  For what reason?  Motive: Unknown.  I guess
> I'm one of those "biased anti-Santorum contributors" you initially
> complained about.  Proof of this presented: None.
>
> How long have you been editing Wikipedia?  I'd expect this kind of
> behavior from a combative new editor, but an experienced editor or
> administrator really should know better.  How editors interact with
> one another isn't a "distraction", it's pretty fundamental to what we
> do here.

We need to grapple with the articles, and templates, on the wiki.

Fred