Robert wrote:
Sean writes:
I am very worried that we are seriously discussing the formation of a committee empowered to prohibit unpopular content from Wikipedia and to ban those that feel that it is important to record it.
I strongly object to this strawman attack - which borders on an ad homenim attack - on the discussion of improving Wikipedia.
Why is it ad hominem to raise serious concerns?
Folks, we still have a major problem. There are many people here who unfortunately refuse to cite sources, engage in original research, write things that are just false and bizarre.
With more insistance of citing sources the other two might just fall into place.
For years many of our best contributors have been driven away due to these problems, and the Wikipedia leadership has done little to address the core problem: While we enforce rules about "playing nice", virtually no one attempts to seriously enforce our rules and policies on citing sources, verifiability, and just plain making sure that our articles do not contain flat-out bullshit.
Viewed in isolation saying that something is "flat-out bullshit" is just another POV.
Ec