[EM] Arrow's Theorem flawed?

[Abd ulRahman Lomax]

At 08:58 PM 5/12/2005, Curt Siffert wrote:

>I recently posted this addendum to the Arrow's Theorem page on 
>wikipedia:  It was immediately deleted for "bias".  [...]
>Was I out in left field for writing this?

Have you asked in the comment page attached to the article? Another writer 
here pointed out that an assertion was made about the alleged opinion of 
some theorists without providing a reference. Without the reference, what 
was said could indeed resemble biased writing, since appeal to undefined 
authority is a characteristic of such writing. "Many experts say,..." is a 
technique for asserting a bias without openly admitting it as a personal 
opinion. Even if it is true. Rather, an encyclopedic way of writing might 
be "According to So-And-So, professor of Hokum at the University of Serious 
Delusion, the moon is indeed made of green cheese. Other experts who have 
expressed similar opinions include Donald Duck, Micky Mouse, and the Jolly 
Green Giant." :-)

(Of course, if the "experts" are asserted as such without a reasonable 
basis, this would still be non-encyclopedic and likely to get deleted or 
edited.)

There might already be more specific discussion on the comment page, did 
you look?

If inquiry about this on the comment page produces no satisfactory answer, 
then reposting, writing in the wikipedia encyclopedic fashion, which would 
include a specific reference when asserting a kind of authority that might 
be controversial, might be appropriate. Anyone can delete changes, what 
counts on wikipedia is what emerges as a consensus after discussion. I've 
seen quite a few edits reversed and re-reversed....

So, consider the implicit criticism -- as you seem to be doing --, come to 
your own conclusions, and respectfully assert it, if you think it will 
improve the article. You have just as much right to your opinion as any 
other wikipedian, except perhaps the owner, who mostly is an "absent god" 
who allows mere mortals to work out their differences.