Ed,
This is the very thing that Im arguing against:
Some people think that 2 opposing sides can battle it out, and let the
best man win. A sort of zero-sum game.
We want STALEMATED zero sum games, like a stalemate in chess or the outcome
of the Iraq-Iran War! This only happens when the power, luck, and strategy
of both sides balances out! Im saying that RKs absence would weaken his
side to the extent that the pattern of stalemates would shift to a pattern
of best man winning (i.e. Sv). I dont favor Wiki Darwinism! I only say
that its acceptable in this context for a number of reasons stated in the
earlier postings: it yields a unique perspective, it yields NPOV by
stalemate, and we cannot expect anything else (BTW, I provided an analysis
in an earlier posting illuminating why flame wars are unavoidable for these
sets of articles).
Yes, there are some articles that are not the product of conflict,
stalemate, and synthesis, but this cannot be avoided. An article on, for
instance, lists of Palestinian villages destroyed, is inherently a
pro-Palestinian, and an article on, for instance, anti-Semitic statements
attributed to Palestinian figures, inherently the domain of RK. However,
their tensions will check for accuracy, but not change the orientation of
the article. I'm referring to the pivotal articles (e.g., Israel, History of
Israel, PLO, Hamas, Arafat, Sharon, etc.). That's where the tension (and the
equal strength of the opposing forces) is needed.
_________________________________________________________________
Add MSN 8 Internet Software to your existing Internet access and enjoy
patented spam protection and more. Sign up now!
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/byoa