[WikiEN-l] the wik user

Sat May 15 13:15:55 UTC 2004

Danny wrote

>Why does Wik usually win.

Because, inter alia, he appears not to give a damn about the human beings
involved.

>In fact, he usually comes under attack. And if he is right, what is wrong
with winning. Are we expected to let everyone, including those who are
wrong, win equally? If he is right, why should he give up?

In the case I have cited to this list, he is quite wrong; and has not
responded in the talk page in months.

>If the other user is just as persistent as he is, but motivated by some
agenda and the debate has been going on for ever, why should he keep
reiterating the old arguments to people who resort to rhetoric rather than
fact?

I'm persistent.  Oh, I'm certainly persistent.  I bring this up frequently.
I just think reverting isn't an argument.

>He does affect Wikipedia as he serves for others as a model of how to
impose
your will and get your way.
No, now you are assuming that his way is wrong, but he is able to get away
with imposing it anyway. That is patently false.

It is quite clear that Wik's way is wrong.  A Wiki composed of such Wikizens
would fail.

>The only really interesting point here. Does etiquette mean that we have to
succumb to people who try to use Wikipedia to further their own agendas. In
fact, calling etiquettte is being used as a way "impose your will and get
your way" at the expense of accuracy. (Not that many of Wik's opponents are
actually paradigms of etiquette).

Well, thank you for that, and I'm glad you're not descending to ad hominem
yourself.

Enforcer's Fallacy:  I tackle users who are on the wrong side of it.  So,
I'm entitled to a matching attitude.

No, that's wrong.  It's wrong for Wik.  It's wrong for RickK.  We need
enforcement on WP; but we do not need anyone who strides around on the basis
that they're involved in carrying it out.

Charles