[002]
AlexRose
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Those are not remotely hysterical, like you imply with sentences such as \
to:
Those are not remotely hysterical, like you imply with sentences such as \\\"Are your fingers so itching to bash this movie that the effort of holding back for at least the opening weekend to pass is too much to bear?\\\". At best, they are frustrated about not being able to edit a Wiki due to a disputable reason.
I understand that this is a relatively recent topic, and holding off on the more subjective tropes is a reasonable action. But unforunately, even the less subjective yet negative information (Reception was generally negative) is being barred from editing, when it shouldn\\\'t. That restriction gives the article a positive bias, which is hardly better from the negative bias that it attempts to avoid.
@Beef I understand that personal opinions do not belong on the main page. However, I am not agruing that my opinion, and all negative opinions, be represented and allowed to shape the article. Wht I am arguing is that barring negative information, regardless of objectivity, for the purpose that it\\\'ll encourage more opinionated negative information is a fallacy.
Regarding your second and third paragraph, I could ask you, in turn, why you find it so important to keep the quality of this sole internet page and argue your viewpoints to some random guy on the internet, which will have absolutely no impact on your life outside the internet. Arguing our motivations behind our reasoning here is absurd and irrelevant to this discussion.
I understand that this is a relatively recent topic, and holding off on the more subjective tropes is a reasonable action. But unforunately, even the less subjective yet negative information (Reception was generally negative) is being barred from editing, when it shouldn\\\'t. That restriction gives the article a positive bias, which is hardly better from the negative bias that it attempts to avoid.
@Beef I understand that personal opinions do not belong on the main page. However, I am not agruing that my opinion, and all negative opinions, be represented and allowed to shape the article. Wht I am arguing is that barring negative information, regardless of objectivity, for the purpose that it\\\'ll encourage more opinionated negative information is a fallacy.
Regarding your second and third paragraph, I could ask you, in turn, why you find it so important to keep the quality of this sole internet page and argue your viewpoints to some random guy on the internet, which will have absolutely no impact on your life outside the internet. Arguing our motivations behind our reasoning here is absurd and irrelevant to this discussion.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Those are not remotely hysterical, like you imply with sentences such as \
to:
Those are not remotely hysterical, like you imply with sentences such as \\\"Are your fingers so itching to bash this movie that the effort of holding back for at least the opening weekend to pass is too much to bear?\\\". At best, they are frustrated about not being able to edit a Wiki due to a disputable reason.
I understand that this is a relatively recent topic, and holding off on the more subjective tropes is a reasonable action. But unforunately, even the less subjective yet negative information (Reception was generally negative) is being barred from editing, when it shouldn\\\'t. That restriction gives the article a positive bias, which is hardly better from the negative bias that it attempts to avoid.
@Beef I understand that personal opinions do not belong on the main page. However, I am not agruing that my opinion, and all negative opinions, be represented and allowed to shape the article. Wht I am arguing is that barring negative information, regardless of objectivity, for the purpose that it\\\'ll encourage more opinionated negative information is a fallacy.
Regarding your second and third paragraph, I could ask you, in turn, why you find it so important to keep the quality of this sole internet page and argue your viewpoints to some random guy on the internet, which will have absolutely no impact on your life outside the internet. Arguing our motivations behind our reasoning here is absurd and irrelevant to this discussion.
I understand that this is a relatively recent topic, and holding off on the more subjective tropes is a reasonable action. But unforunately, even the less subjective yet negative information (Reception was generally negative) is being barred from editing, when it shouldn\\\'t. That restriction gives the article a positive bias, which is hardly better from the negative bias that it attempts to avoid.
@Beef I understand that personal opinions do not belong on the main page. However, I am not agruing that my opinion, and all negative opinions, be represented and allowed to shape the article. Wht I am arguing is that barring negative information, regardless of objectivity, for the purpose that it\\\'ll encourage more opinionated negative information is a fallacy.
Regarding your second and third paragraph, I could ask you, in turn, why you find it so important to keep the quality of this sole internet page and argue your viewpoints to some random guy on the internet, which will have absolutely no impact on your life outside the internet. Arguing our motivations behind our reasoning here is absurd and irrelevant to this discussion.
