QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 20th September 2010, 7:36pm)
It's part of the "geek mindset" (I know because I am one myself) that the abstract logical consistency of ideas and actions is of greater relevance than whatever real-world consequences the actions and ideas might have -- after all, the real world is messy, illogical, inconsistent, and full of annoying human beings, and hence is clearly inferior to the abstract logical plane.
Quite. It's just a sign of immaturity, of not having lived long enough to realise that logical consistencey doesn't mean shit. I recommend marriage as an antidote. That takes care of it quite effectively.
I imagine the subconscious train of thought goes something like this:
"Oy, you may rule out there, but you don't rule here, do ya? We rule! You don't, like, want us to put this in? Well,
watch me! This is an En-Cy-Clo-PEE-Dia, and we're gonna, like, just do whatever we want, and there's nothing you can do about it."
The last part of this is, of course, right.
This knee-jerk reaction gets dressed up with abstract arguments about the value of information, and knowledge, but underneath that's what it is. People get stuck at that response, and don't progress beyond it to actually look at the situation from more than one perspective.
The only time I remember Wikipedia actually stepping back from the brink was in the
Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy (T-H-L-K-D).
What about this one, Cyclopia? Would you like to have the pictures back in that article, or is there a limit to your logical consistency? After all, Wikipedia should not really care about the parents' feelings, should it?