Board Thread:Naruto Discussions/@comment-1514283-20140829001753/@comment-1514283-20140829225807

Seelentau wrote: If there's conflicting information, there's always the chance that one person is right and one is wrong (obviously). What if the person in charge was wrong with their view on the information?

This is why substantial edits ought to be accepted by consensus and why we shouldn't let irrational fear of being wrong impede our efforts to record the facts as we believe them to be truth at the time of recording.

If something makes complete sense at the time, and it is then later proven to be inaccurate, nothing is stopping us from acknowledging and rectifying our mistakes.

Why is this so hard to understand? At present, it seems that any and all edits to  any article, no matter how significant, has to be a battle. What's even worse is that rational discussion hardly ever actually takes place, and when they do, they don't last long because people resort to use inconsistent standards for evidence and resort strawmen and frustrated ad hominems - all until a sysop has to talk down to all of us and make us stop "or else." Not that I blame them.

Clearly we're at an impasse and the most troubling thing about it is that we have foot on both paths. In one instance we allow edits based on logic and evidence, and in the other we demand it to be stated in big, bold letters in the manga.

It would be nice if we could judge every article edit and debate on the merits of the logic and evidence supporting arguments put forth by contributors, but as it has been made abundantly clear, we can't, because if A gets the OK to make an edit and B doesn't, then that's a problem because that leads to counter-productive spite and resentment that holds the entire wiki back.

So the way I see it, we can either commit to one path, for better or worse, i.e. everything has to be explicitly stated or depicted in the manga or logic and material evidence are acceptable to justify reasonable edits.

Or we can do nothing and stay stick to the same old, frustratingly inconsistent way of doing things in which we at times come to reasonably logical conclusions and other times pretend we don't see shit for it is.

That is until someone else writes another thread like this and hopes for things to change, because, and I think this is fair to say, it's clear to most of us the present way of doing things just isn't working.