<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
<pre><br>Kevin:<br><br>You wrote:<br><br>On Wikipedia they remove articles if you can't show sources to argue that
the topic is important enough to have an article.<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>But do you see anything wrong with that? Are "sources" needed for everything?<br><br>So they're saying that not having to bury your favorite candidate isn't important<br>unless it says so in an academic journal? :-)<br><br>Could it be that someone at wikipedia has their head up their a**?<br><br>And, in general, is that the same for everything? Does the validity of everything<br>depend on its being validated by an academic?<br><br>I'm not criticizing all academics. In mathematics, physics and other physical sciences,<br>I have no quarrel with the authority of academics.<br><br>But a sweeping worship of academic authority in general is unproductive for progress<br>of any kind.<br><br>There are areas where academic authority is questionable at best. Have you every looked<br>at what academic philosophers write? You'd be surprised how nearly-uniformly muddled and<br>befuddled they are. Voting system academics are similar. I'm sorry, but the metaphor<br>of "head up the a**" is unavoidable when the subject of voting system academics comes up.<br><br>I'm disappointed to hear that about wikipedia.<br><br>Mike Ossipoff<br><br><br><br></pre> </div></body>
</html>