At 02:44 PM 7/26/02 +0200, you wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jul 2002, Daniel wrote:
Hm. I think the idea of having a page called "controversial issue", and
describing the problem there is a good idea. I also think that linking to
this
page early in a controversial article is a good idea.
I _don't_ think listing them up is a good idea. The page should be an
explanation as to why we chose to flag certain articles as controversial,
what it implies (that one should be prepared for slanted content, etc.), and
how to ultimately solve the controversy (npov tactics).
Linking from each article, instead of linking _to_ each article will also
make
it easier for the random reader (just arrived from
Google) to know whether
these are cold encyclopedic "facts" or contested viewpoints. (Of course, the
system can be abused, but it is more dangerous for people to have too little
skepticism, than too much. (And a flame war of people turning on and off the
"controversial issue"-link is far less intrusive than one where they rewrite
large sections for every update.))
If you need to track down controversial issues to work on, use the funky
"pages
that link here" gizmo.
You might be right, but that would not justify removing the page [[List of
controversial issues]]. What you need to do is write a new page, however
titled, like [[editing controversial issues]]. Perhaps the redirect could
be removed from [[controversial issures]] with links to [[editing and [[list
Fred Bauder