[WikiEN-l] ArbCom Legislation

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 6/22/2008 11:54:00 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
delirium at hackish.org writes:

This is  a somewhat anomalous situation, because it's really a single 
fact that  seems to be neither negative nor positive being omitted, and 
the  interpretation that it's non-neutral because others include this 
fact is a  bit of a stretch.>>>
By your own above its "...neither negative nor positive..." so what *is*  it? 
 Neutral?
The interpretation is not that "because others include" it that makes it  
non-neutral.  I believe the posted is stating that because other reliable  
third-party sources include it, that makes it NOR.  So the burden should be  on 
those who wish to suppress it, to make explicit why they do so.  Just  one example 
of where the false nutshell "do not harm" harms the work of the  project.  A 
better nutshell would be "do no additional harm (beyond what's  already been 
done), but go ahead and state the harm that's already been  done."
 
We are not the first submitters of harm, that does not mean we bury our  
heads in the sand to that harm.




In a message dated 6/22/2008 11:54:00 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
delirium at hackish.org writes:



There are much more direct and worrying examples, mainly the  omission of 
widely-reported, well-sourced negative information which tends  to make 
the resulting articles non-neutral in that they're more positive  than 
the consensus view we're supposed to be  summarizing.>>


The problem is, that on some articles you get a small vocal and strident  
group, including involved admins, who see nothing wrong with bending policy  to 
support their view, and using their tools against those who would read  
policy-as-writen.  And then you get the majority who are like "....  whatever, its 
not worth fighting about."
 
So the project is harmed because we do not report negative or personal  
points that really would go into a biography of a living person.
 
Unfortunately, having been involved in this issue for a while, I don't see  
any solution.  And now ArbCom does the project no good and probably a great  
harm by giving even more power to those who wish to squelch the evidence instead 
 of reporting it fairly and evenly.  There is a reason why we have wheel  
wars.  Giving such a large degree of freedom to the first admin who happens  to 
jump in and hampering others who might have a more unbiased view, is not the  
way to address the issue.  Typically the first admin is involved  already.
 
Rather, this procedure seems like a way to drive even more contributors  away 
from the project.
 
Will Johnson



**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for 
fuel-efficient used cars.      (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)