[Wikipedia-l] Re: Contoversy flag on articles.

[The Cunctator]

On 7/27/02 3:12 PM, "Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen" <daniel at copyleft.no> wrote:
> And on a more personal note: Articles where matters are presented in a fashion
> I feel strongly is not NPOV (but where the author probably disagrees again -
> having used facts and reasonable language) tax my motivation to contribute to
> Wikipedia severly. Yes, it's kind of self centered, but I think it's a very
> natural and common feeling to be discouraged with the project in its entirety
> when you come into contact with a flame war you probably don't have the
> resources to fight (and would also like to avoid, since your expertise lies
> elsewhere). An easy way of registering your disagreement would be
> very beneficial in this regard - and importantly, I don't think it would be
> very destructive from the opposite point of view. If I wrote an article I
> considered to be very good and also NPOV, and someone marked it as
> controversial, it would probably annoy me slightly, but I wouldn't feel that
> my
> work was going to waste, or that the Wikipedia project was doomed. :) Okay,
> that was rather drawn out, but you get my point.
> 
Feel free to use the Talk to register your opinion on the article. It's part
of the reason it's there.

I can't see what help a checkbox will do other than to let people defuse a
bit of frustration meaninglessly. It doesn't add quality or information to
the entry. 

Meta-commentary should be restricted to Talk, I believe. Otherwise it gets
to be a very slippery slope into semantic porridge.

On a personal note, I too am driven to frustration by many of the articles.
E.g. the "history of the United States" articles seem like they're straight
out of 1950s textbooks.