On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 02:57:01AM -0600, Todd Allen wrote:
I think you have an excellent point here, and this
brings us back to
the previous point: Which one of us decides what is accurate? Why
should any of us be doing that?
Ans: we jointly determine article content by discussion on the talk
page. Evaluating sources and deciding what to include is a crucial part
of the writing process, which is why we all do it whenever we write
something.
In the absence of a different source
offering a counterargument, what you are left with is "This is wrong
because I say so," and allowing that is simply not sustainable,
especially for contentious areas.
I'm sure everyone in this discussion is already familiar with that
argument. It is true that, for contentious articles, we may fall back to
that position as a practical means of compromise. It also aids with
neutral point of view for article topics which have several differing
viewpoints.
But we shouldn't forget that this is only a practical means of
compromise for particularly contentious articles, not a goal in itself.
For most articles, editors are able to come to agreement on the talk
page about whether a particular claim is accurate and about whether it
should be included. In some sense, articles where the editors won't or
can't come to such agreement represent a breakdown or failure of the
wiki process. We shouldn't write our policies in a way that encourages
this dysfunctional situation.
- Carl