[WikiEN-l] Scary...

[Matt Jacobs]

I would also agree that, if challenged, it's primarily up to those
demanding inclusion to convince others.  There are limits to this, of
course, as when those advocating removing content have a poor
rationale for doing so, but ultimately the burden of evidence is on
the one arguing for inclusion.

I think there are good reasons for this.  As a general principle, it
helps when dealing with edits that are questionable for numerous
reasons, such as BLP issues and possible hoaxes.  It helped me deal
with what was likely a malicious editor trying to falsely attribute
certain beliefs to a particular theologian.
Sxeptomaniac

>  Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:04:31 -0400
>  From: "David Goodman"
>  Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Scary...
>
>  Examine Tony's statement earlier  in the thread:
>  "I agree 100%  If I can't convince anybody that something belongs in
>  Wikipedia, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia."
>  He doesnt say "convince everybody"  Read literally, if any unbiased
>  editor will support something, it should stay in, just as we don't ban
>  a user if  any one administrator is willing to unblock him.
>
>  More practically, it would require the consent of the community to
>  remove material. The only other way of reading it, is that it means,
>  convince everybody--but there wont be any content at all left on
>  controversial subjects if we do that.  So I suppose he means
>  consensus. I agree with him that the removal of good-faith material
>  should require prior consensus.
>