steven l. rubenstein wrote:
And this is the whole point of the "cite
sources" and "verifiabilty"
policies that Silverback disparages. Of course it is possible that I am
wrong about the Marxist definition -- but if I am wrong, then whomever
is providing the "marxist" definition should be able to provide a source
or citation.
For Silverback to disparage these policies, and insinuate that it was
self-righteous of me to bring this problem to the attention to the list,
is too absurd. His behavior mimics that of RJII's, and is the kind of
behavior that has no place here at Wikipedia. Our work must be
verifiable. If someone asks for a source, provide it. Like RJII,
Silverback not only scoffs at providing a source, he continues to insist
that the definition is right, that it is I who has to provide the
source, that I am self-righteous, that the policy is trivial ...
The case of [[capitalism]] has reached the Arbitration Committee and been
accepted. Evidence is being gathered now; people's opinions of community
opinions would probably go on the evidence talk page or the acceptance
talk page.
At what point do we characterize this behavior as
trollish?
Remember to Assume Good Faith!
(The less charitable may note that "assume good faith" can be seen as a
restatement of "don't attribute to malice what can be explained by
stupidity." I'm speaking in general here, not about any particular example.)
- d.