Whether or not this piece intended to raise these issues regarding the inherent subjectivity of canonicity and authority, it has effectively raised them. The wikipedians are right that the piece doesn't belong in their encyclopedia, but they are deluded into thinking that they are achieving some sort of clinical objectivity via rational consensus (or that any such objectivity could ever be achieved).

<a href="http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=1449626">Dog Obedience</a>

Whether or not this piece intended to raise these issues regarding the inherent subjectivity of canonicity and authority, it has effectively raised them. The wikipedians are right that the piece doesn't belong in their encyclopedia, but they are deluded into thinking that they are achieving some sort of clinical objectivity via rational consensus (or that any such objectivity could ever be achieved).

<a href="http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=1449626">Dog Obedience</a>