Wikipedia Paradox

[Chiropteran]

Let me preface this by saying I love wikipedia. I might visit the site to look up one quick thing, and I invariable end up reading things completely unrelated to my original topic, but it's always fun to learn new things.

However, I was thinking about how disputed pages are handled and came across something that could be a problem.

My understanding is that when there are conflicting views on a wikipedia page, each side argues their point of view and additional contributors help decide what actually gets put on the page.

I can see this working for most pages, but what about the WW2 pages, holocaust pages, anything related to nazi's?

I could see the following occur every time:

Contributor 1: "Well I feel that the Nazi's..."

Contributor 2: "You said Nazi's! Godwin's law! You lose the argument!"



How do they ever get anything settled?

 

[LtPage1]

Usually, they're arguing over stupid details which change back and forth all the time without anyone noticing.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Let me preface this by saying I love wikipedia. I might visit the site to look up one quick thing, and I invariable end up reading things completely unrelated to my original topic, but it's always fun to learn new things.

However, I was thinking about how disputed pages are handled and came across something that could be a problem.

My understanding is that when there are conflicting views on a wikipedia page, each side argues their point of view and additional contributors help decide what actually gets put on the page.

I can see this working for most pages, but what about the WW2 pages, holocaust pages, anything related to nazi's?

I could see the following occur every time:

Contributor 1: "Well I feel that the Nazi's..."

Contributor 2: "You said Nazi's! Godwin's law! You lose the argument!"



How do they ever get anything settled?

... has this ever actually happened?

 

[mordantmonkey]

immediately thought of this.

 

[nageov3t]

I don't think goodwin's law applies when you're talking about actual nazis.

 

[Eeezee]

Godwin's Law actually specifies that you may bring up the Nazis if you are actually talking about the Nazis and World War II.

The law was constructed such that the paradox you described could not occur.

 

[Colt45]

Yeah, proper/historical use is exempt.

 

[sandorski]

1/10

 

[Epic Fail]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Let me preface this by saying I love wikipedia. I might visit the site to look up one quick thing, and I invariable end up reading things completely unrelated to my original topic, but it's always fun to learn new things.

However, I was thinking about how disputed pages are handled and came across something that could be a problem.

My understanding is that when there are conflicting views on a wikipedia page, each side argues their point of view and additional contributors help decide what actually gets put on the page.

I can see this working for most pages, but what about the WW2 pages, holocaust pages, anything related to nazi's?

I could see the following occur every time:

Contributor 1: "Well I feel that the Nazi's..."

Contributor 2: "You said Nazi's! Godwin's law! You lose the argument!"



How do they ever get anything settled?

You said Nazis? I invoke Godwin's law, you are wrong about the paradox.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: yamadakun

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Let me preface this by saying I love wikipedia. I might visit the site to look up one quick thing, and I invariable end up reading things completely unrelated to my original topic, but it's always fun to learn new things.

However, I was thinking about how disputed pages are handled and came across something that could be a problem.

My understanding is that when there are conflicting views on a wikipedia page, each side argues their point of view and additional contributors help decide what actually gets put on the page.

I can see this working for most pages, but what about the WW2 pages, holocaust pages, anything related to nazi's?

I could see the following occur every time:

Contributor 1: "Well I feel that the Nazi's..."

Contributor 2: "You said Nazi's! Godwin's law! You lose the argument!"



How do they ever get anything settled?

You said Nazis? I invoke Godwin's law, you are wrong about the paradox.

You said it too. You and him are Wrong!!!

 

[Epic Fail]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: yamadakun

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Let me preface this by saying I love wikipedia. I might visit the site to look up one quick thing, and I invariable end up reading things completely unrelated to my original topic, but it's always fun to learn new things.

However, I was thinking about how disputed pages are handled and came across something that could be a problem.

My understanding is that when there are conflicting views on a wikipedia page, each side argues their point of view and additional contributors help decide what actually gets put on the page.

I can see this working for most pages, but what about the WW2 pages, holocaust pages, anything related to nazi's?

I could see the following occur every time:

Contributor 1: "Well I feel that the Nazi's..."

Contributor 2: "You said Nazi's! Godwin's law! You lose the argument!"



How do they ever get anything settled?

You said Nazis? I invoke Godwin's law, you are wrong about the paradox.

You said it too. You and him are Wrong!!!

<cue Twilight Zone music>

 

[BrownTown]

hahaa, I didn't mention any forbidden things that measn everything I say is right, Lakers will win the NBA championship!!!