[WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution broken?

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 4/29/2008 11:25:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
moreschiwikiman at hotmail.co.uk writes:

My own  view is this: Wikipedia's dispute resolution process works fine when 
it's case  of two or more good-faith contributors engaging in a genuine debate 
over  something where debate is meaningful. The process is hopelessly 
inadequate to  deal with editors who act tendentiously or not in good faith, or in  
circumstances where there is no meaningful debate to be had  (homeopathy).>>


-------------------
This is a no-starter because of your phrasing.
Those who have followed the debate as "journalists" and encyclopedists,  
instead of adherents understand that the point of the homeopathists isn't to  
conquer all the science articles.  But the point of the non-homeopathists  is to 
destroy all the homeopathy articles.  Hardly the same position.
 
We are not a science project.  We are a project to document all human  
"knowledge", to say homeopathy is not knowledge is tendentious.
 
Will Johnson



**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car 
listings at AOL Autos.      
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)