[WikiEN-l] The Australia problem - in a nutshell

Thu Mar 10 19:22:39 UTC 2005

Steve has come up with both a cogent analysis and an effective solution:

<< Here is the problem, in a nutshell.  Sometime conflicts at Wikipedia
are 
over semantics, and sometimes they are substantive.  Constructive
editors 
are able to sort out which is what.  Unconstructive, obstructionist
editors 
systematically confuse one source of conflict for the other.

For example, the conflict between Adam and Skyring owes to the fact that

Skyring does not understand proper English grammar and usage ("proper" 
regardless of which English speaking country you live in) -- he doesn't 
understand the meaning of "shall be" and "is," nor the meaning of 
"paraphrase."  Skyring insists that this is a substantive problem, that 
Adam is making factually false claims -- and as long as Skyring insists 
that this is a conflict over meaning rather than proper grammar, he will

continue to obstruct progress on the article.

Silverback is doing the reverse.  He is suggesting that the conflict
over 
"republic" is semantic, because Australians and Americans use words 
differently.  He is as wrong as Skyring.  Political Scientists as well
as 
your average Yankee will call both Australia and the US "democracies,"
and 
both groups understand that neither is a pure democracy.  For one thing,

neither country makes decisions through the direct participation of all 
citizens -- they have what is called "representative democracy."
Moreover, 
modern "liberal" political theory -- meaning, theory of modern liberal 
states -- also argue that democracy is and should be limited by rule of 
law.  Since some notion of law (e.g. "inalienable rights" limits the
powers 
of the majority, no country with rule of law can be a pure 
democracy.  Silverback suggests that this is what "republic" means.  I
am 
not a political scientist, nor am I very knowledgeable about Australia 
(although as a kid I loved this TV show called "Skippy"), but I do not 
think this is what "republic" means.  And we aren't going to resolve
this 
by each of us coming up with our own definition.  Let Adam, Silverback,
and 
Skyring do research into Australian constitutional law and political 
theory, compare sources, and provide quotes OR paraphrases -- it really 
doesn't matter which, as long as they come from verifiable sources.

My point is, that this argument isn't going to be solved by speculations

about what we think words mean -- it will be solved by people doing 
research on how political scientists and politicians have used words,
and 
perhaps how usage has changed over time. >>

Those who wish my assistance with this article, please contact me
(either here or on my talk page).

Uncle Ed