Daniel wrote:
Also, the existence of such a page, and some links to
it, doesn't mean all
possible non-NPOV pages at Wikipedia would have to ble tagged, in some giant
operation...
So:
* A controversy flag doesn't really impede an article.
* It doesn't add work for anyone.
* It saves work and time for both sides in a dispute.
* It "lightning rods" away undue emotional, immediate rewrites of articles.
* It signals to the audience that not everyone on Wikipedia is satisified
with the way the particular article is presented. (IMO, very valuable
information.)
* It would affect a very limited number of articles.
Is it still such a bad idea?
-- Daniel
I think so, sorry. :-)
*It's more complicated than what we're doing already, and for uncertain benefit.
*People will just have to get over their immediate emotional responses if they wish to
write NPOV about controversial topics--that or avoid writing about those topics.
Vigilance in this area is required, and yes, I've had my own transgressions on this
front.
*So far, talk pages have been used to indicate dissatisfaction with an article's
content; that has worked with considerable success.
*It would affect a very large number of articles, as my and your ideas of what is
controversial are probably quite different. Suppose I cite "gun rights" and
"capitalism", User:pRobertson cites "abortion" and "separation of
church and state", someone else cites "taxes" and "Indonesia"....
I fail to see how it's useful. It seems likely to become a convenient axe-grinding
tool for partisans. And, really, does wikipedia need another list?
Just my opinion, of course, and--as always--feel free to disagree & elaborate. :-)
kq