[WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey

Fri Jun 30 14:10:28 UTC 2006

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

Citing cases of "Priority Inversion", in this case
where a few editors declare their "consensus" as an
excuse for deleting relevant and sourced information.

Case 2.

Article:  Charles Peirce.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Peirce

Section:  Scholastic realism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Peirce#Scholastic_realism

Edit: Revision as of 01:49, 11 June 200601:49, 11 June 2006 by Wylie Ali
(?Scholastic realism - deleting section as explained on talk page)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Peirce&diff=next&oldid=57953106

Entire section deleted by "new user" Wylie Ali.
This section was well-documented with both primary and secondary source citations.

The explanation given on the talk page by Wylie Ali is this:

| ==Deleted Material:  Scholastic Realism== 
|
| It is clear from above that there is a concensus that this article is pitched to journal level
| and not general educated audience as it should be.  For that reason and others, I'm moving the
| Sholastic realism section to here (for consideration ;-) ). Besides the fact that most of it
| is taken up with an interpretation dispute among scholars (and it takes sides in that dispute),
| the first sentence calls "well known" something readers will have never heard of and the second
| sentence is obviously POV. The second sentence also assumes wrongly that one who believes that
| reality depends on many minds instead of one is not an idealist. The part beginning "Third" is
| weird because if Peirce's doctrine is not about realism vs. idealism, then why did this very
| paragraph start out talking about realism vs. idealism? Why not leave the latter topic out of
| this section entirely instead of putting it in and suddenly saying well Peirce is not really
| talking about that anyway.  --[[User:Wylie Ali|Wylie Ali]] 01:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Note the spelling of "concensus".  You will see it again.

As far as I know, this section came in with an earlier Nupedia article by a recognized
Peirce scholar that formed the initial material of the Wikipedia article.  It is true
that some of what it says is controversial among the scholars so affected, which is
par for the course in any article about any philosopher worthy of note.  Standard
practice in WP dictates dynamic balance not wholesale deletion as a solution.

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

Jon Awbrey wrote:
For example, under the proper ordering of priorities
a statement that is relevant and sourced should not
be deleted in favor of an opinion that is unsourced
just because the source is not the favorite writer
of 2 or 3 editors or because the sourced statement
contradicts the personal POVs of 2 or 3 editors.
But this is actually the routine way that things
are done in WP.

Rosa, Michael wrote:
Cite please - preferable at least a dozen or so of examples, they should
be easy to find if this is really the "routine way" of doing things on
WP.  This is a persistent, recurrent and systematic pattern in your
emails that I have observed, you describe something that you claim is
taking place without giving any specific and real-life examples.

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Jon_Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o