On 14/10/2010 20:36, Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
#167 is the allegation that "we" fail
to understand what the Tea Party
guys are all about. AFAIK we don't claim to understand anything much,
just to compile articles from sources.
I think that as a serious response, this is
disingenuous. People don't
write with 100% precision, and they certainly don't use Wikipedia terminology.
It may be literally true that we don't claim to understand anything, but that
doesn't make the complaint invalid. It just means that you need to apply a
bit more intelligence to understanding the complaint beyond literally parsing
the words. (And there's *far* too much literalness among Wikipedia policy
wonks).
I would guess that a complaint that we don't understand something is a claim
of undue weight and unreliable sources. Almost any claim about the Tea Party
has been made by someone; whether it has been made by someone who we ought to
pay attention to is another story.
Well, you might be right (I don't mean about
me being disingenuous,
which is certainly one of the wrong words for what I was being). On the
other hand it seems more likely to me that the complaint was one of
interpretation, rather than reporting.
Charles