==capitalist destruction wikipedian style== 

 Hey thanks for you insightful comments, you started this article and get much respect from me for all your work on it.  I understand what you're saying about beating them at their own wikipedian game, however I have a real problem with compromise in cases where the other side is vehemently wrong.  The capitalists are (probably unknowingly) deploying a tactic not unlike the tactic in boxing in which one is much weaker than their opponent but tries to get their opponent tired so that they get the upper hand.  I feel this is that path we're going down if we give respect to things that are simply not true at all.  These users have already gone beyond their misunderstanding of anarchism to show truly how ignorant they really are about the subject, actually questioning whether Emma Goldman was for or against capitalism!!  What the fuck?!  At the moment of writing this and in the past I've been trying extremely hard to see how, through the wikipedian perspective, one could justify putting this ideology no bigger than a high school fanclub into a position where it looks like it's a dominant and legitimate ideology (or in this case really the issue is the labeling of it "anarchist").  One must remember that by sheer logic if someone is looking up Anarchism on wikipedia, they most likely want to know more about it or know nothing about it and want to learn what it is.  If someone previously oblivious to Anarchism comes to this article for information and they get the impression that anarchism is not against capitalism, the article's purpose has just ended in self-defeat!  You can only be "fair to all parties" and "flexible" and "respecting of other's opinions" to a point where it makes sense.  To make another stupid example, as I like doing, if someone has the opinion that milk made in the right fashion is not white, should this really be put on the article about Milk, let alone become not only a major part of it but give respect and decree to that belief?  Or, should someone with common sense say "Are you fucking stupid?!" and invalidate their knowledge about milk?  I would certainly choose the latter.  I have to disagree with the assertion that we should not decide this based on sense and on facts.  However, I do agree with you that such arguments will not work for the time being against people who don't care about facts, history, or reality, but only care about what they say to be true, based on ignorance of what they are talking about.  Furthermore strictly on just the subject of being a good wikipedian, it is in Wikipedia's best interest to be factual.  Surely user editability is the biggest thing that sets wikipedia apart from every other encyclopedia, but what I have found and almost everyone I talk to who likes wikipedia, is that on wikipedia you (supposedly should at least) get the truth.  When you look up an article in Britannica, it's written by one person who has a general overview knowledge of what they're talking about, especially in politics, philosophy, and the like, and have errors all over the place, but that's accepted as okay because errors are called "inevitable."  Know why they're inevitable?  Because you have a one man dictatorship defining the definition for EVERYONE to follow!  Wikipedia was created partially on the basis of rejecting that approach to article writing, the goal being to result in fairer more accurate articles.  It is much more important to be accurate than to be "fair" or "include everybody".  Many times, the majority is wrong!  However, in this case the minority is wrong.  This is a true example: out there somewhere on the internet, there is (i'm not kidding) ONE guy that made a shitty little site about combining anarchism and monarchism.  Seriously, I wish I was kidding.  Luckily though, like a lot of stupid people, he's an extreme minority and no one else on Earth besides himself(maybe not even him!) respects such a claim and combination.  SHOULD THE ARTICLE INCLUDE THIS VIEW OR GIVE IT MERIT?  Should it be written that "some people believe this, some poeple define anarchism as this.." in relation to that idea?  Of course not!  It's insane to do so and one doesn't need to get into the factual inaccuracy of something like THAT. )  It truly is the same situtation.  It is a case of a five-year-old jumping up and down saying "Me too!! Me too!" to the anarchist movement and I don't think wikipedia should be an example of catering to those who don't know what they're talking about.  We can't start buckling our knees now and saying "enough already!  okay okay have it your way."  We can't let that happen.