On 27/06/2010, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk> wrote:
On 27 June 2010 17:47, Thomas Dalton
<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Where you
draw the line, though, is quite tricky...
So should the various articles linked to from here be deleted?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_economic_thought
Economics was a bad example, perhaps :-)
That said, this illustrates the point - we are quite capable of having
an article on [[neoclassical economics]] and one on [[marxist
economics]], but what we don't have is two co-equal articles on
[[economics]], one from a Marxist perspective and one from a
neoclassical perspective.
They're subarticles. The Wikipedia allows subarticles, and that's not
considered a fork. And even that can be abused.
As I say, fuzzy line, especially with more
philosophical concepts - it
shows up the problems with simply saying "we don't like forks".
We don't like forks. That isn't the problem. The problem is the people
that DO like forks.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
--
-Ian Woollard