QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 6th May 2008, 10:32am)
QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 6th May 2008, 2:51pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 6th May 2008, 9:17am)
But I am also mindful of the difficulty of maintaining the high level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics that two or three courageous editors were able to achieve in yesterday's remarkable showdown with the ID Cabal.
Moulton, the "achievement" is hollow. Wikipedia has no learning curve. There's nothing stopping the article reverting to its previous state at any time. And most articles do.
I'd disagree. What that page does show is an indisputable example of tendentious and biased editing, especially Filll, (get back to the editing Guys) who invented a long original analysis that avoided addressing the fundamental issue, but a textbook example of the ID cabal at work, unable to grasp that they were making it all up.
That's an accurate assessment. Filll's representations are not especially well-grounded in evidence and reasoning. If I were there, I would supply copious evidence to debunk his assertions. But I am not there because Filll engineered the Spammish Inquisition to remove me.
QUOTE
I take it that someone has worked down the petition line by line and attacked every signatory? Is it worth doing a check and seeing if the same behaviour has been applied? If it has, I'd be going for a block or a ban for, well, Lack of common Sense.
Filll, more than anyone on the WikiProject on Intelligent Design, reviewed every version of the list, every name on the list, and every effort by anyone known to have gotten their name off the list. I believe he may have been the one most instrumental in compiling the
List of Signatories of the Dissent Petition.
QUOTE
What is really annoying is that I think most people would agree that the ID movement is a fringe movement, and certainly almost entirely American based with little traction elsewhere in the world. So it is really annoying that dolts like OrangeMarlin give it credibility by distorting the case to make it seem like they do not believe their cause can stand the cold light of day. It almost makes me want to edit in favour of ID to redress the balance!
I am in favor of objective reporting, in a manner that achieves an impeccable standard of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in writing articles for an encyclopedia.
QUOTE
So Wikipedia does have a learning curve, it is just tediously slow, and as I was reminded, it requires the re-education of an infinite number of monkeys joining the project.
I confess that I have utterly failed in my foolish quest to educate that cabal.