--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com>
But I don't think Wikipedia can work like that.
Balance can't come
without stability.
I agree. In other words, we demand civility in the
treatment of other people, regardless of their views.
A stable article is one which any side in a
controversy can look at and
say, yes, this article describes my side accurately
and does not give an unfair advantage to the other
side.
This is absolutely correct and about the best
definition I have heard of what we should aim for.
Sometimes I want to propose a rule that, when
someone goes on a POV crusade, they should be told
not to edit any more until they
can "state the other
side's case to >the satisfaction of the other side"
(to paraphrase famous >success coach Steven Covey).
This would be a very good *rule.* When Magnus gets
his Annotations hack working for test/wikisource-- we
should use it on Wikipedia talk pages to give some
threaded depth to the back and forth multidirectional
discourse--otherwise these discussions will be
continue to be as incoherent as they are now.
~S~
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com