[WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

Fri Mar 25 19:37:27 UTC 2005

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.